# You know what happened to Steve Irwin, well read this...



## bugmankeith (Oct 19, 2006)

Get this, another person was stabbed in the chest by a stingray barb! I dont know what it is this year, but the stingrays must be talking to eachother. I know Steve's death was sad, but these stingray accidents are suddenly happening more and more, I find it VERY strange.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061019/ap_on_re_us/stingray_stabbing


----------



## sick4x4 (Oct 19, 2006)

yeah i read that...they are on the offensive lol


----------



## Scorpendra (Oct 19, 2006)

looks like the one who killed Steve took a working vacation.


----------



## Cirith Ungol (Oct 19, 2006)

Coulda been the same bugger, not? Or his or her brother or sister or mum or dad, maybe with a little different genetical temper... just imagining.

Whatever, this is still only two out of maybe a thousand or more "possible" attacks that *could* happen every year.


----------



## Kriegan (Oct 20, 2006)

You know I've been pondering a bit about this... Scientists keep saying that this behaviour is extremely rare and that this shouldn't have happened but maybe we need to rethink and question what we really know about  stingrays. I'm pretty sure they must have a solid base of proof, analysis, and what nots to support the odds of these attacking but maybe these conclusions and theories are so old and innacurate that there might be a new breed of stingrays far more agressive that we need to investigate in order to get some answers as to why is this happening. We need to question what we know. Just my two cents...


----------



## Brian F. (Oct 20, 2006)

And this poor guy wan't even in the water!  Bizarre.


----------



## Vys (Oct 20, 2006)

They're coming to get us.

First biomarinal attack wave-muscle. Second one will be brains. Octopuses, presumably. Then, there will be peace.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 20, 2006)

I'm sure it's always happened now and again, they just get more publicity after Irwin got killed, so it only *seems* like it's happening more often.

That or the rays are being messed with *because* of Steve Irwin, which could lead to a lot of stupidity and death. Doesn't sound like it in this case, though, maybe the boat disturbed it or something in the water did.


----------



## iturnrocks (Oct 20, 2006)

I think what the public needs is a good video of what can happen when you swim on top of a stingray.  This should help prevent future encounters.  Now where can we find a video like that?


----------



## bugmankeith (Oct 20, 2006)

I still like stingrays anyway.


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2006)

iturnrocks said:


> I think what the public needs is a good video of what can happen when you swim on top of a stingray.  This should help prevent future encounters.  Now where can we find a video like that?


I certainly hope you're not implying that the tape that showed how Steve died should be made public.    Terri (Steve's widow) has made it abundantly clear that the tape will never be shown, and that it's private, tragic, and horrific - NOT for the general public to gawk over. 

---
Wendy
---


----------



## Bill S (Oct 20, 2006)

Mushroom Spore said:


> I'm sure it's always happened now and again, they just get more publicity after Irwin got killed, so it only *seems* like it's happening more often.


That's undoubtedly the case.  Stingrays have been stinging people as long as the two species have been bumping into each other.  I got my first cobra (a beautiful banded phase Egyptian) when its former owner got stung by a stingray - almost 40 years ago.  The guy survived, as most victims do, but he said it was so painful that he would never ever keep a venomous animal in his house again.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 20, 2006)

Socrates said:


> I certainly hope you're not implying that the tape that showed how Steve died should be made public.    Terri (Steve's widow) has made it abundantly clear that the tape will never be shown, and that it's private, tragic, and horrific - NOT for the general public to gawk over.


While I obviously respect her wishes, I believe Steve himself was on record as saying that if he died on camera, he *wanted* it recorded and released.


----------



## thisgal (Oct 20, 2006)

I agree that this has probably always happened, and most likely only seems to be happening more often because of Irwin's death. Not to disrespect the man, but it always bothered me how much he, well, bothered animals. I always figured it was only a matter of time before he got too comfortable. 

As far as his videotaped death, regardless of whether or not he would have wanted it publicized, I think it would be highly disrespectful, and not to mention gruesome to show an actual video of someone dying. If I was in his wife's place, I know I wouldn't even want to watch it myself. 

Furthermore, the amount of time and energy mankind spends trying to control other animals disturbs me. We go and virtually wipe out a species and then we try to artificially regenerate the creatures and we're actually surprised when something goes wrong. I believe in the "survival of the fittest" concept, and I also believe that the only advantage humans have over other animals is our IQ. At any other test of survival, we would lose.


----------



## Khaz Rhoz Zek (Oct 20, 2006)

thisgal said:


> I believe in the "survival of the fittest" concept, and I also believe that the only advantage humans have over other animals is our IQ. At any other test of survival, we would lose.


That's a fairly large advantage and really, the only one that matters, sir.


----------



## KennyGee (Oct 20, 2006)

" Jumps out of water and on to boat and stung a man " LOL! 

        He was mostly fishing and accindently caught it and when he got it up on to the boat he tried to pick it up or sumthing to release it and it got him. Lol there saying like it actually intentionally jumped on the boat and stung him . lol


----------



## Sr. Chencho (Oct 21, 2006)

*Why a lethal area?*

My question is: How did both men got stung in the heart? I can understand Steve's injury, but how about the man that was trying to get the stingray off his boat. Why not a leg or a hand? Was this a coincidence?
Fred


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 21, 2006)

chencho295 said:


> Was this a coincidence?


It's probably instinct for them to strike at the center/main body of whatever is percieved as a threat, so that the barb will actually do some damage instead of just pissing off a predator.


----------



## Dom (Oct 21, 2006)

chencho295 said:


> My question is: How did both men got stung in the heart? I can understand Steve's injury, but how about the man that was trying to get the stingray off his boat. Why not a leg or a hand? Was this a coincidence?
> Fred


I think it's fairly obvious it was a copy-cat killing .


----------



## thisgal (Oct 21, 2006)

Khaz Rhoz Zek said:


> That's a fairly large advantage and really, the only one that matters, sir.


It's "ma'am," and, not necessarily. Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive. Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.


----------



## Scorp guy (Oct 21, 2006)

Mushroom Spore said:


> It's probably instinct for them to strike at the center/main body of whatever is percieved as a threat, so that the barb will actually do some damage instead of just pissing off a predator.


that sems like a very good point  

I agree witht he person saying that, this is just seemingly becoming more often because of the Steve Irwin attack. Nothing more.


----------



## Khaz Rhoz Zek (Oct 21, 2006)

thisgal said:


> It's "ma'am," and, not necessarily. Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive. Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.


That would never happen naturally, so your point is moot. Man > all, madam.


----------



## thisgal (Oct 21, 2006)

Khaz Rhoz Zek said:


> That would never happen naturally, so your point is moot. Man > all, madam.


If you think about it, it happens all the time. Maybe not under those circumstances, but it's happened. We go and swim in water that sharks live in, and people are completely perplexed; "Well, why would that animal attack me?!"

I vaguely remember an article about a man who had spent most of his life researching the behaviour of the grizzly bear. He knew so much about the creature that he thought it would be a good idea to go screw around with one. Okay, seriously though, it seems like this guy thought a full grown mother grizzly would actually care that he knew her inside and out, and therefore he was not a threat to her cubs and she should let him live. I think his funeral was closed casket. 

Anyway, the only thing I've been trying to say is that I will always feel that all wild predatory animals are superior to me, regardless of how much I know about them or how little I fear them. My dad had an interesting comparison; "Any animal with a jaw powerful enough to remove one of your body parts is like a hot stove: watch it and study it all you want, but if you walk up to it and touch it, you're gonna get burned!"


----------



## Ganoderma (Oct 23, 2006)

They are all defending themselves.  Where it hits matters very little as long as it stops the predator.  thats really all that matters, so yes it is a coincedence.  I doubt it lines everything up and aims for the heart of an animal they rarely ever see.


----------



## Down-Under (Oct 23, 2006)

Im in aussie so i heard alot about steves death  i got a fright for a stingray last week but i stabed it before it got me


----------



## TheImperator (Oct 23, 2006)

Oh man, this isnt a god sign, it appears that the Stingrays are planning an invasion on humankind. In the future...hyper evolved Stingrays will replace us. I hear a movie coming up! ;P


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 23, 2006)

thisgal said:


> Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive. Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.


I wouldn't just put my money on the leopard. 
Man, there are plenty of tough dudes out there, and human males are actually pretty tough compared to many other mammals. 

We have a huge advantage in the 'Survival of the fittest'. As we are big, smart, and the capability of learning to defend ourselves very well.


We just kind of suck in the water. But so do Leopards.


----------



## Ewok (Oct 23, 2006)

Stingrays are just naturally sinister I think, you can see it in there eyes. Like at public aquariums rays are always flicking water at people when they swim around the edges of those hands on aquariums. lol I'm only joking


----------



## tattoo_rebel (Oct 23, 2006)

I think we don't know anything about stingrays , we study them for a while think we know everything about them, get overly confident  about predicting their behaviour and alas! the results.


----------



## 236260 (Oct 23, 2006)

TheImperator said:


> Oh man, this isnt a god sign, it appears that the Stingrays are planning an invasion on humankind. In the future...hyper evolved Stingrays will replace us. I hear a movie coming up! ;P


Stingrays On a Train, starring Chris Tucker.


----------



## Louise E. Rothstein (Oct 23, 2006)

*You know what happened to Steve Irwin...*

Dear Arachnopeon,

I disagree:humans can resist tuberculosis exposures that kill tigers.
Flocks of birds die of flu exposures that most humans don't die from.
Frogs die out after toxic chemical exposures that kill very few people.
For survival...disease resistance is at least as important as I.Q.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 24, 2006)

thisgal said:


> I believe in the "survival of the fittest" concept, and I also believe that the only advantage humans have over other animals is our IQ. At any other test of survival, we would lose.


There are things bigger and tougher then us, like male Rhino's, Elephants, and Polar Bears, that in a fight for life, they'd almost always win against male humans. 

But, although some of us can survive in the wild, apparently some can't. You must also consider that in the 'survival of the fittest' Technology is our adaption to survive. It's improved our chances against the larger animals, diseases, and the elements. Our IQ is what's put us at the top.


However, I'm a Christian, and I don't need to wonder why we're the best.


----------



## TheImperator (Oct 24, 2006)

236260 said:


> Stingrays On a Train, starring Chris Tucker.


Hahahahaha! that's the funniest thing I've heard so far. I agree with Kaliningrad though, I've seen a few Stingrays in aquariums acting pretty evil towards people looking at them.


----------



## Bill S (Oct 24, 2006)

thisgal said:


> Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive....


First, the person's IQ would normally prevent this from happening - that's part of the advantage.  People are usually smart enough to choose the context of the encounter - including location, conditions and weapons.  


> Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.


Because man has the IQ to control that context, and to create and bring the weapon, he does have the clear advantage.  I do believe that there are a lot more leopard "trophies" taken by man than the other way around - indicating empirically that human IQ may be the stronger advantage.

"Putting" two creatures in a container to see which is the best has a few flaws.  Put a stingray and a man in a room together, and the stingray dries up and dies.  Put them in a tank together and the man drowns.  The real measure of advantage is in seeing which can dictate the terms of the meeting.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 25, 2006)

To argue about which species is the best is just...... well..... silly.

Each animal will be in an advantage if you put it on its ground. 

Without a weapon of some sort, no man can kill a rhino. Whereas the odds of a rhino killing a man if he is armed is signifcantly less.



> Because man has the IQ to control that context


In a situation of two in a room. But I promise you the guys jumping the fence in Mozambique that get killed by lions will argue. They have the superior I.Q. , yet end up being dinner.




> that's part of the advantage. People are usually smart enough to choose the context of the encounter - including location, conditions and weapons.


Do you know how many armed hunters get killed by wild animals? Or seriously injured. Ask a man that has tried to hunt a buffalo in Africa.



> The real measure of advantage is in seeing which can dictate the terms of the meeting.


The animals here usually succeed in dictating that meeting place. Especially the predators. Its how they live.



> But, although some of us can survive in the wild, apparently some can't. You must also consider that in the 'survival of the fittest' Technology is our adaption to survive.


No. In the bush common sense is. Learning from the animals is what keeps you alive. Technology is fine for a month or so. Try surviving in the Okavango for a year. Your technology will not beat time.



> I disagree:humans can resist tuberculosis exposures that kill tigers.
> Flocks of birds die of flu exposures that most humans don't die from.
> Frogs die out after toxic chemical exposures that kill very few people.
> For survival...disease resistance is at least as important as I.Q.


A crocodile can be ripped open, and keep living in filthy water and show no signs of an infection. A dog can survive a Sydney Funnel web bite. The list can go on and on.



> I wouldn't just put my money on the leopard.


The leopard will kill you. Without a weapon you have no chance. Its stronger than you, and far more willing to kill. 


This argument has no support on either side.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 25, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> But, although some of us can survive in the wild, apparently some can't. You must also consider that in the 'survival of the fittest' Technology is our adaption to survive.





Arietans said:


> No. In the bush common sense is. Learning from the animals is what keeps you alive. Technology is fine for a month or so. Try surviving in the Okavango for a year. Your technology will not beat time


Technology WILL PREVAIL over nature in MANY situations and circumstances.

I know how to survive in the wild over here. Sure its not like there, but I could learn.
If I tried to survive by 'common sense' I'd kill to eat, or scavenge. I'd have to look for some source of water, etc..

If I tried to survive by Technology. I'd drive a tank into the Okavango, with a 50 cal. on top. I'd carry around a .357 magnum, and a rifle. Then with the tank, and whatever else I brought, I'd clear an area for a landing strip, and I could have any supplies I wanted airdropped in.


And if we can win against animals with weapons, thats perfectly fair in the 'Survival of the Fittest'. Our intelligence developed them.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 25, 2006)

> I know how to survive in the wild over here. Sure its not like there, but I could learn.
> If I tried to survive by 'common sense' I'd kill to eat, or scavenge. I'd have to look for some source of water, etc..
> 
> If I tried to survive by Technology. I'd drive a tank into the Okavango, with a 50 cal. on top. I'd carry around a .357 magnum, and a rifle. Then with the tank, and whatever else I brought, I'd clear an area for a landing strip, and I could have any supplies I wanted airdropped in.


Surviving Africa's bush is not the easiest thing to do. Even with technology.

Drive a tank into a swamp? You have to be joking!
The Okavango is difficult to travel by boat.

As for guns, Botswana doesn't allow fire arms within its borders.

A landing strip? In an area covered with water?


----------



## wicked (Oct 25, 2006)

Off topic- Since someone mentioned the leopard vs man, there is a book that may interest the survivalist/naturalist types. The Man Eating Leapard of Rudraprayag by Jim Corbett. The one I have is printed by Oxford India Paparbacks and I believe it is out of print, may take some digging or a trip to the library to find. Its not a fiction book, and that was one scary kitty.  

On topic- I love stingrays. I doubt this story would have made national headlines if not for the tragic death of Steve Erwin. In the article I read(with a grain of salt) the man was stung while trying to remove the ray from the boat, which would put it in close proximity to his chest. You guys need to stop watching those late night B movies. ;P


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 25, 2006)

Arietans said:


> Drive a tank into a swamp? You have to be joking!
> The Okavango is difficult to travel by boat.


Okay, I don't know much about African geography. I didn't know it Okavango was all swamp. I thought alot of it was dry bush as well.

Either way, technology gives us the ability to dominate much of nature. 
Is the Okavango really that difficult? Well, us HUMANS could give it a nice carpet bombing, or whatever else we wanted, and clear out a nice area to set up shop.

Maybe one sole human, with only the technology he could carry would have a hard time, but the human race could easily do it, by whatever means necessary.
We just don't want to. And I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD!!- Just to make that point.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 26, 2006)

The Okavango is very difficult to travel. I lived in its centre for about a year. I took a groundsheet with me, and nothing else.

The Okavango is only dryish for a little part of the year. When the rains start falling in July it becomes Land of Water. The real nasties aren't leopards and lions, but ticks, mosquitoes and flies.



> Off topic- Since someone mentioned the leopard vs man, there is a book that may interest the survivalist/naturalist types. The Man Eating Leapard of Rudraprayag by Jim Corbett. The one I have is printed by Oxford India Paparbacks and I believe it is out of print, may take some digging or a trip to the library to find. Its not a fiction book, and that was one scary kitty.



Leopards have no equal when it comes to intelligence and calculated ferocity in cats. While man eating leopards are very rare, they certainly have no difficulty killing one.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 26, 2006)

Arietans said:


> The Okavango is very difficult to travel. I lived in its centre for about a year. I took a groundsheet with me, and nothing else.


Okay, then another thing to consider. 
You can survive there. How about our Arctic in North America? Or the Monsoon Forsets? The Amazon?
There are people that can survive in those places, and not in the Okavango like you can. But we're all humans. And yet we have 'adapted' to all these locations. 

Thats better then any animal near our size or intelligence can say. 
We are Top Dog in the survival of the fittest. We're just killing ourselves. 

And raising our kids as sissies that can only live as long as technology and society will sustain them.


----------



## Khaz Rhoz Zek (Oct 26, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> Okay, then another thing to consider.
> You can survive there. How about our Arctic in North America? Or the Monsoon Forsets? The Amazon?
> There are people that can survive in those places, and not in the Okavango like you can. But we're all humans. And yet we have 'adapted' to all these locations.


Aye, that's one of our strengths: our ability to adapt to any situation or circumstance.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 27, 2006)

> Okay, then another thing to consider.
> You can survive there. How about our Arctic in North America? Or the Monsoon Forsets? The Amazon?
> There are people that can survive in those places, and not in the Okavango like you can. But we're all humans. And yet we have 'adapted' to all these locations.


You can survive there, but many people don't. Many people die under ice, or killed by something else. Not all people have the ability to adapt to certain environments. 

I can live in the bush indefinitely, but the arctic will kill me in a few days. I will not be able to adapt to that environment.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 27, 2006)

Arietans said:


> You can survive there, but many people don't. Many people die under ice, or killed by something else. Not all people have the ability to adapt to certain environments.
> 
> I can live in the bush indefinitely, but the arctic will kill me in a few days. I will not be able to adapt to that environment.


All that matters is that you are human. If you were raised to survive there, you could. 

A polar bear raised in Africa could not survive. Nor a crocodile in Alaska.


----------



## thisgal (Oct 29, 2006)

Ah, it seems I've started a bit of a discussion here...  
I think the bottom line here is that people are intruding more and more on other animals' territory, resulting in people getting hurt and then actually believing they did nothing wrong, and that the animals are out to get us! 

*ahem* The movie plot thickens. Tom Cruise has now been introduced in the cast.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 30, 2006)

A crocodile not surviving the arctic is a void point. Its genetics aren't suited to it. Same goes for the polar bear. 

Neither are yours. Without warm clothes, Scotland will kill you, let alone the Arctic. You don't survive the cold because of intelligence, but because your frail body cannot stand the temperatures. You have to simulate it. Clothes have nothing to do with adaptability.

Would you be able to hunt and live there? By that I mean you, not eskimoes. They have lived there forever and lost many lives learning what they know. With all that, they won't survive a desert.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 30, 2006)

Arietans said:


> Without warm clothes, Scotland will kill you, let alone the Arctic.


We made clothes! WE invented this stuff! We are allowed to use it! HUMANS are top of the line, because of this stuff we've intented!
When things like those sea slugs thingies, (don't know how to spell neudabranch-ish thingy) eat sea anemonies' (again spelling?) stinging cells to put on their backs, would they be considered unable to survive? Its not their cells they've put on, but we don't call it cheating.

Hermit crabs find the shells they put on their backs, so whats wrong with clothes?


----------



## Arietans (Oct 30, 2006)

Even so, it has nothing to do with adaptability.

All the warm clothes in the world won't fill your stomach. And I mean yours.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 30, 2006)

You don't get what I'm saying. If we can land and/or truck supplies to lets say.. 80% of the land in this world. Then we can survive there, pretty much. We can get supplies from around the world BECAUSE we know how to. And 80%+ of the world is WAY better then animals can say.

Tell you what, and to make it even, we'll give the crocodiles airplanes. Just to make it fair. But since WE posess the intelligence to fly and drive, we are the ones that can adapt.
Same with everyone saying animals would win in fights, unless we were armed. WHY wouldn't we be armed? Give me and a leopard 50 cal. sniper rifles, and tell me who'd win. Now, given the leopard in his own territory would be at a much better advantage for an ambush, then give us both .45's. I'd win. Because I posess the intelligence and skill to shoot fire arms.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Oct 30, 2006)

Khaz Rhoz Zek said:


> Aye, that's one of our strengths: our ability to adapt to any situation or circumstance.


We don't adapt to any situation. We alter our environment to suite us.


----------



## wicked (Oct 30, 2006)

Here is a link that explains a little about who Jim Corbett was. I guess you could say he is one of my heros, even though he died long before I was ever born. It took him two years to kill that cat, the official death toll on record at the time was 125, corbett was sure it was much, much higher. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Corbett_(hunter)

The goverment called corbett in when no other hunter could kill it. Corbett would often climb out of his hide at dawn, after spending the entire night waiting for the cat to return to a victim or take bait, only to find the leopard had been stalking him instead. The ability to pull a trigger doesn't mean you won't end up kitty kibble by the time the sun rises.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 31, 2006)

> We don't adapt to any situation. We alter our environment to suite us.


That is my point



> The goverment called corbett in when no other hunter could kill it. Corbett would often climb out of his hide at dawn, after spending the entire night waiting for the cat to return to a victim or take bait, only to find the leopard had been stalking him instead. The ability to pull a trigger doesn't mean you won't end up kitty kibble by the time the sun rises


Exactly. Having technology won't necessarily ensure your survival


----------



## dtknow (Oct 31, 2006)

wicked said:


> On topic- I love stingrays. I doubt this story would have made national headlines if not for the tragic death of Steve Erwin. In the article I read(with a grain of salt) the man was stung while trying to remove the ray from the boat, which would put it in close proximity to his chest. You guys need to stop watching those late night B movies. ;P


Exactly what I was thinking!


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 31, 2006)

wicked said:


> The goverment called corbett in when no other hunter could kill it. Corbett would often climb out of his hide at dawn, after spending the entire night waiting for the cat to return to a victim or take bait, only to find the leopard had been stalking him instead. The ability to pull a trigger doesn't mean you won't end up kitty kibble by the time the sun rises.





Arietans said:


> Exactly. Having technology won't necessarily ensure your survival


You guys don't get it. The point is 'Survival of the Fittest' right? So, you're bringing up a cat that was hard to bring down by man with guns. But you don't see the whole picture. Humans posess the ability to NUKE the area where the cat lived and certainly kill it. Thats all that matters.. Game over. We win.
If we see a Leopard we would be concerned BECAUSE of its ability to kill extremely well. It doesn't mean its going to. We don't have to blow up a grenade on a bumblebee to prove we can kill it.
We posess the ability to launch missiles and shoot 50 cal. sniper rifles to kill any animal on Earth. NO other animal can say that. We win totally. There is no contest.
Just because a few animals kill us every so often doesn't mean anything. Its because we exist and they exist, killings will happen. But we kill alot more then them then they kill of us. We are the 'Fittest to Survive'.


----------



## Arietans (Oct 31, 2006)

Mate, humans try to kill many people a year. They actually put in the effort.

If its about killing mass quantities, animals are still ahead.

Malaria mosquitoes kill millions of people each year without trying. Even with technology so many people die. DDT is a potent poison that has proved ineffectual. Mosquito nets haven't even made a dent. Repellent doesn't help.

As for bombing something, it doesn't prove you are the fittest to survive. It just proves you are so destructive that you can't live in harmony with your surroundings. 

If we all die nature will carry on. If everything in nature dies, we will follow. We are dependant on them, not the other way round. 

Your brain doesn't make you the fittest to survive, it helps you differentiate between right and wrong. 

If survival were so easy, how come hunters that come here spend two weeks in the bush, hire a tracker and many vehicles to shoot one buffalo? Where's the "technology"?


----------



## Hedorah99 (Oct 31, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> You guys don't get it. The point is 'Survival of the Fittest' right? So, you're bringing up a cat that was hard to bring down by man with guns. But you don't see the whole picture. Humans posess the ability to NUKE the area where the cat lived and certainly kill it. Thats all that matters.. Game over. We win.
> If we see a Leopard we would be concerned BECAUSE of its ability to kill extremely well. It doesn't mean its going to. We don't have to blow up a grenade on a bumblebee to prove we can kill it.
> We posess the ability to launch missiles and shoot 50 cal. sniper rifles to kill any animal on Earth. NO other animal can say that. We win totally. There is no contest.
> Just because a few animals kill us every so often doesn't mean anything. Its because we exist and they exist, killings will happen. But we kill alot more then them then they kill of us. We are the 'Fittest to Survive'.


I've got news for ya pal. We ain't the fittest. Actually according to some scientists we may not even be around for all that much longer (geologically speaking of course). Its only a matter of time before mother nature throws something at us that reduces our numbers to a much smaller and more manageable population. Where was your technology when the tsunami killed close to half a million people. That was a freaking surge of water. And who fled the scene. Oh yea, the animals. And who went down to the beach to see all the shells that suddenly were made available because the tide went WAAAAAY out. Oh yea, the people. I am not making fun of that situation, but it seems that the critters seemd to know impending doom was on the way.

Your attitude reflects a very disturbing trend, which is we are not part of nature, but nature is ours to control. We cannot control it. Whether it be a landslide, a leopard, or a stingray that freaks out because of something and leaps in a boat.


----------



## Snipes (Oct 31, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> You guys don't get it. The point is 'Survival of the Fittest' right? So, you're bringing up a cat that was hard to bring down by man with guns. But you don't see the whole picture. Humans posess the ability to NUKE the area where the cat lived and certainly kill it. Thats all that matters.. Game over. We win.
> If we see a Leopard we would be concerned BECAUSE of its ability to kill extremely well. It doesn't mean its going to. We don't have to blow up a grenade on a bumblebee to prove we can kill it.
> We posess the ability to launch missiles and shoot 50 cal. sniper rifles to kill any animal on Earth. NO other animal can say that. We win totally. There is no contest.
> Just because a few animals kill us every so often doesn't mean anything. Its because we exist and they exist, killings will happen. But we kill alot more then them then they kill of us. We are the 'Fittest to Survive'.


We win? We WIN? By obliterating others in these fashions, we are killing ourselves as well.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 31, 2006)

Arietans said:


> Mate, humans try to kill many people a year. They actually put in the effort.


Tarantulas kill each other to. Thats an effort.



Arietans said:


> If its about killing mass quantities, animals are still ahead.
> 
> Malaria mosquitoes kill millions of people each year without trying. Even with technology so many people die. DDT is a potent poison that has proved ineffectual. Mosquito nets haven't even made a dent. Repellent doesn't help.


So does rabies and Avian influenza on animals. Yet, they're no closer to a cure. And I don't see them getting one soon. They must wait for natural defenses to develop. We have _vaccines_ for Malaria, it helps.



Arietans said:


> As for bombing something, it doesn't prove you are the fittest to survive. It just proves you are so destructive that you can't live in harmony with your surroundings.


Again, you missed the point. The point is what we are capable of it. It doesn't mean we have to. Or should.



Arietans said:


> If we all die nature will carry on. If everything in nature dies, we will follow. We are dependant on them, not the other way round.


Thats too far. I never said that.



Arietans said:


> Your brain doesn't make you the fittest to survive, it helps you differentiate between right and wrong.


Bull. Thats stupid. Come one.. Our brains help us VERY much. I don't know about you, but last time I checked, the gorillas were in our cages, not us in theirs.



Arietans said:


> If survival were so easy, how come hunters that come here spend two weeks in the bush, hire a tracker and many vehicles to shoot one buffalo? Where's the "technology"?


I'll tell you what. I'm not too 'hip to dip' on all this technology in the world. I don't own a cell phone, I don't fish with those 'depth finders', and I don't hunt on a four-wheeler. I prefer the real stuff, (as real as you can get in North America). And other people, like myself, enjoy going to places like Africa to hunt, in more or less, as a challenge. But sometimes they sissy the hunt with technology anyway.



Hedorah99 said:


> I've got news for ya pal. We ain't the fittest.


 Okay, I'll admit it. Maybe I didn't say it right. I believe things like rats or mosquitoes could exist on Earth just as long as we could. We can't get rid of them. I think of the larger, terrestrial vertebrates, we are.



Hedorah99 said:


> Actually according to some scientists we may not even be around for all that much longer (geologically speaking of course).


Me being a christian, don't believe that. I know we're gonna be here till Jesus comes back. And I hold that firm.
But regardless, I really despise those kind of statements. 'Scientists' came up with Evolution, an idea they ARE now losing. They've realized that evolution doesn't cut it. Everything's too perfect. They won't admit there's a god, but they'll give us 'Intelligent Design'.



Hedorah99 said:


> Its only a matter of time before mother nature throws something at us that reduces our numbers to a much smaller and more manageable population.


I don't care what they think. I don't believe it.



Hedorah99 said:


> Where was your technology when the tsunami killed close to half a million people.


Where was nature when we came and slaughtered the millions of Buffalo? 
Where was nature when we blasted all the carrier pidgeons from the air?




Hedorah99 said:


> That was a freaking surge of water. And who fled the scene. Oh yea, the animals. And who went down to the beach to see all the shells that suddenly were made available because the tide went WAAAAAY out. Oh yea, the people. I am not making fun of that situation, but it seems that the critters seemd to know impending doom was on the way.


Humans still survive. Our population isn't in danger, so therefore that entire scenario is negligable.



Hedorah99 said:


> Your attitude reflects a very disturbing trend, which is we are not part of nature, but nature is ours to control. We cannot control it. Whether it be a landslide, a leopard, or a stingray that freaks out because of something and leaps in a boat.


Again, you guys are pushing these points at me. I never said we 'control' nature, but we can certainly manipulate it. Much more to our advantage then any other creature.



Snipes said:


> We win? We WIN? By obliterating others in these fashions, we are killing ourselves as well.


Again, its our capability. If a man points a gun at you, will you only give him your wallet if he WILL shoot you? No, its the fact that he can. And might spare your life if you give it to him. Now he's got the wallet, you're not dead. But did he win?? Yes. Exactly my point.

Something else for you all to consider. Much of the diseases that are killing us is because we've spread around the globe. If we stayed in single areas, we'd have much stronger immune systems, with less spread diseases. But we don't we've taken advantage of every corner of the globe for our growing population. And we're developing ways to protect ourselves. Most other animals couldn't go as far as we have, or better their survival in those areas. We ARE surviving because we're quite smart.

But, I'll admit it again. Too many people are raising their kids as sissies, that CAN'T survive without technology, they can't live in the woods, and can't trap a rabbit. It makes me sick.


----------



## thisgal (Oct 31, 2006)

Alright, pal, let's not get into any religious debates here.


"But, I'll admit it again. Too many people are raising their kids as sissies, that CAN'T survive without technology, they can't live in the woods, and can't trap a rabbit. It makes me sick."  

So get off your computer and go trap a rabbit.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Oct 31, 2006)

thisgal said:


> Alright, pal, let's not get into any religious debates here.


I don't want to debate it.



thisgal said:


> So get off your computer and go trap a rabbit.


Comments like this are stupid. I never said computers were dumb, or not needed. I don't need to go trap a rabbit. But if I ever had to, I could.

The next generation are wimps. Many of them anyway.. They cry or throw fits when they don't get what they want. They eat chocolate and watch TV. The dad mows the lawn. And the kids can't unplug the toilet.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 1, 2006)

> So does rabies and Avian influenza on animals. Yet, they're no closer to a cure. And I don't see them getting one soon. They must wait for natural defenses to develop. We have vaccines for Malaria, it helps.


Tell that to the millions dying each year from malaria.



> Tarantulas kill each other to. Thats an effort.


But for some reason they don't do it because the other T has a better burrow. Probably their "limited intelligence"



> Bull. Thats stupid. Come one.. Our brains help us VERY much. I don't know about you, but last time I checked, the gorillas were in our cages, not us in theirs.


Mate, believe me when I tell you that the animal stays by choice.




> I'll tell you what. I'm not too 'hip to dip' on all this technology in the world. I don't own a cell phone, I don't fish with those 'depth finders', and I don't hunt on a four-wheeler. I prefer the real stuff, (as real as you can get in North America). And other people, like myself, enjoy going to places like Africa to hunt, in more or less, as a challenge. But sometimes they sissy the hunt with technology anyway.


I've been working in the bush for ten years, and I have seen guys wih guns that can do a backflip if you asked nice. Radar and who knows what else shoot nothing in two weeks. Not even spot game.



> Okay, I'll admit it. Maybe I didn't say it right. I believe things like rats or mosquitoes could exist on Earth just as long as we could. We can't get rid of them. I think of the larger, terrestrial vertebrates, we are.


The larger mammals are shy and retiring. Its is their nature. We are the only violent mammal.



> Where was nature when we came and slaughtered the millions of Buffalo?
> Where was nature when we blasted all the carrier pidgeons from the air?


No offence intended, but nature was busy destroying places like New Orleans.




> Something else for you all to consider. Much of the diseases that are killing us is because we've spread around the globe. If we stayed in single areas, we'd have much stronger immune systems, with less spread diseases. But we don't we've taken advantage of every corner of the globe for our growing population. And we're developing ways to protect ourselves. Most other animals couldn't go as far as we have, or better their survival in those areas. We ARE surviving because we're quite smart.


Uhm....... we have no natural predators, so nature made a plan. We will never overcome disease. The will change to suit a new environment. Our natural selection continues......


----------



## Khaz Rhoz Zek (Nov 1, 2006)

Arietans said:


> Tell that to the millions dying each year from malaria.
> 
> 
> The larger mammals are shy and retiring. Its is their nature. We are the only violent mammal.
> ...



1. Because they didn't have access the proper channels for treatment.

2. Have you ever encountered a chimpanzee? They're absolutely vicious mammals, far moreso than humans.

3. What of the countless amounts of people and homes that were able to survive the hurricane quite well due to technology? 

4. Not until we've rid ourselves of our organic bodies, which will be entirely possible with future technology. What will nature do then? Nothing, really, because we will merely rise up to defeat nature through sheer ingenuity and time, much as we have done since time immemorial.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 1, 2006)

> 1. Because they didn't have access the proper channels for treatment.


That is a statement based on a google search mate. Let me explain how malaria medication works, or doesn't work. Like most diseases, the parasite causing malaria adapts and counter adapts at a geometric rate. The medication that worked last season won't work this season. 



> 2. Have you ever encountered a chimpanzee? They're absolutely vicious mammals, far moreso than humans.


Many many times. No animal is vicious just because it can be. There is always a reason for it. Always. With chimps it tends to the territorial. Remember that what you see may be brutal, but use perspective. If you hit someone with a stick it looks far less damaging than what it does if you used the same force with a hammer. Chimps have unreal strength, thus the effect when beating something is very dramatic.




> 3. What of the countless amounts of people and homes that were able to survive the hurricane quite well due to technology?


Do you believe that hurricane was the worst ever?




> 4. Not until we've rid ourselves of our organic bodies, which will be entirely possible with future technology. What will nature do then? Nothing, really, because we will merely rise up to defeat nature through sheer ingenuity and time, much as we have done since time immemorial.


Who knows what nature will do? How many countless lives have been lost due to trying to second guess nature? We can't even predict the weather properly. 

The fact of the matter is this: we can't do anything without nature, and it does everything without us.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 1, 2006)

Arietans said:


> Tell that to the millions dying each year from malaria.


Tell them what? That there'd be millions more dead without medical technology?



Arietans said:


> But for some reason they don't do it because the other T has a better burrow. Probably their "limited intelligence"


Our greater intelligence poses a problem. It can present higher choices. With more intelligence, comes the ability to do more things, right or wrong, that an animal would never think of. Such as throwing toilet paper over someone's house.




Arietans said:


> Mate, believe me when I tell you that the animal stays by choice.


Man I don't understand what you keep trying to say. We have dominion over gorrillas. Now you'll say, "well, tell that to the people walking in on them and having their heads ripped off".  Thats very rare, you know that. And the times we show dominion over them is far greater. Our technology put them in cages, (which I don't like at all) and we can keep them there. Lets say a gorilla did escape, tranquilizer gun. Thats it. The gorilla can cause all the trouble it can, until the humans put the technology to it. The gorilla loses.





Arietans said:


> I've been working in the bush for ten years, and I have seen guys wih guns that can do a backflip if you asked nice. Radar and who knows what else shoot nothing in two weeks. Not even spot game.


It doesn't mean its not fun.



Arietans said:


> The larger mammals are shy and retiring. Its is their nature. We are the only violent mammal.


Most of the time yes, but we can stop them. They can't stop us.



Arietans said:


> No offence intended, but nature was busy destroying places like New Orleans.


Man, they built a city in a hole in the ground. You'd expect it could get flooded this bad. But still. Our numbers are not in danger, and these scenarios pose no threat. They don't happen enough.



Arietans said:


> Uhm....... we have no natural predators, so nature made a plan. We will never overcome disease. The will change to suit a new environment. Our natural selection continues......


Wrong. We have natural predators. If we stayed just naked humans running around, we'd get killed by bears, jumped by gorillas, and bitten by snakes. But we've developed this way. No other mammal has overcome disease either.



Arietans said:


> Let me explain how malaria medication works, or doesn't work. Like most diseases, the parasite causing malaria adapts and counter adapts at a geometric rate. The medication that worked last season won't work this season.


Yes, but we're still doing far better for research against diseases. Whereas animals are still dying from Mad Cow disease, Avian flu, and dozens others. They must wait for natural defenses to develop. This difference proves superior intelligence.




Arietans said:


> Who knows what nature will do? How many countless lives have been lost due to trying to second guess nature? We can't even predict the weather properly.





Arietans said:


> The fact of the matter is this: we can't do anything without nature, and it does everything without us.


We can manipulate it. Like I said. To our advantage better then any other animal. Period.

And remember, its not just diseases. A king cobra can down an elephant. Yet we have developed anti venom for it. And countless other venoms. If our limbs get severely broken, we can repair them. Other animals would probably die to disease or predators. Our children born with birth defects still survive. In the wild they would not. Because it could weaken the genes. But still, animals young born with defects, would be eaten.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 1, 2006)

> Tell them what? That there'd be millions more dead without medical technology?


The medication doesn't make much difference. The parasite adapts too fast, regardless of our wonderous technology

You keep heading to technology. Technology doesn't add to your adaptability, it gives you a crutch to lean on.



> It doesn't mean its not fun.


Walking/driving in the sweltering heat in Africa, seeing nothing for two weeks after you spent a few thousand dollars to get here is certainly not my idea of fun. But that wasn't the point. The point was that with all that technology they shot nothing.



> Wrong. We have natural predators. If we stayed just naked humans running around, we'd get killed by bears, jumped by gorillas, and bitten by snakes. But we've developed this way. No other mammal has overcome disease either.


But we aren't running around naked. Nature solves this problem with disease. Mammals are hardier to diseases than we are. Disease is our "predator".




> Yes, but we're still doing far better for research against diseases. Whereas animals are still dying from Mad Cow disease, Avian flu, and dozens others. They must wait for natural defenses to develop. This difference proves superior intelligence.


But yet they prove more successful. Without doing research a croc has developed anti-bodies without equal. And with all our research we haven't even cured a cold. Nobody is arguing intelligence, I'm arguing adaptability.





> And remember, its not just diseases. A king cobra can down an elephant. Yet we have developed anti venom for it. And countless other venoms. If our limbs get severely broken, we can repair them. Other animals would probably die to disease or predators. Our children born with birth defects still survive. In the wild they would not. Because it could weaken the genes. But still, animals young born with defects, would be eaten.



Yet a dog can take a full bite from a Puff Adder in the face and doesn't die. I've seen animals take some serious stings and bites and are just fine a few days later. Stings and bites that would kill a human. Birth defects, however tragic (and they are tragic), don't survive in nature because there is no room for it. Humans with birth defects will also not survive if there was no one to help care. 


The argument is not intelligence, its adaptability.


----------



## sschind (Nov 1, 2006)

ShadowBlade said:


> Tarantulas kill each other to. Thats an effort.
> 
> Bull. Thats stupid. Come one.. Our brains help us VERY much. I don't know about you, but last time I checked, the gorillas were in our cages, not us in theirs.


I don't know,  I saw this movie once,  the name escapes me, I think it was Planet of the ...  something or other.


Seriously, back on topic of this thread.  As others have pointed out, stories like this would not have made the headlines if it weren't for Steve Irwins's death.  Add to that the number of curiostity seekers out there who never gave stingrays a second thought and now "want to see what they are all about" I'll bet we will be hearing about a few more.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 1, 2006)

Arietans said:


> The medication doesn't make much difference. The parasite adapts too fast, regardless of our wonderous technology
> 
> You keep heading to technology. Technology doesn't add to your adaptability, it gives you a crutch to lean on.


Yes it does. And its not just modern 'technology' we're talking about. Look at the fertile crescent. Farming would have been ineffective in much of it, but the people there 'channeled' off the rivers to irrigate farmland. Like what.. 4000+ yrs ago? They changed the environment, nature, to their advantage. That had to alter their farming behavior to adapt to the environment. If a polar bear were to be put their, it could not alter the environment to feed itself. It does not posess the intelligence. We humans can 'adapt' our behavior with technology to live in every corner of the globe. NO other animal can. 




Arietans said:


> Walking/driving in the sweltering heat in Africa, seeing nothing for two weeks after you spent a few thousand dollars to get here is certainly not my idea of fun. But that wasn't the point. The point was that with all that technology they shot nothing.


They could fly over in a helicopter... They could use heat sensing equipment at night... But they don't. Its for sport.



Arietans said:


> But we aren't running around naked. Nature solves this problem with disease. Mammals are hardier to diseases than we are. Disease is our "predator".


Here's a couple pages for you-
http://www.msmosquito.com/WP122802.html
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/quarterly_reports/2005_qtr_2.jsp

Tell me, why are these animals dying? We humans have vaccines and cures for diseases like these. Why don't the animals have efficient natural defenses against these if medical technology is so pointless??



Arietans said:


> But yet they prove more successful. Without doing research a croc has developed anti-bodies without equal. And with all our research we haven't even cured a cold. Nobody is arguing intelligence, I'm arguing adaptability.


We don't need to cure a cold. In 99.9999+% of the time, its not fatal. Unless you have like AIDS. There are diseases we can't cure, but theres lots we can. Look at those pages above. Animals aren't more perfect then us. They have natural immunities we don't have, we have some they don't have. They have lots we don't have, we have medical technology.




Arietans said:


> Yet a dog can take a full bite from a Puff Adder in the face and doesn't die. I've seen animals take some serious stings and bites and are just fine a few days later. Stings and bites that would kill a human. Birth defects, however tragic (and they are tragic), don't survive in nature because there is no room for it. Humans with birth defects will also not survive if there was no one to help care.


Venoms are very tricky to compare. With our bigger bodies, can be very effective in surviving bites/stings. Things like Black Widows are not as bad as people think. Healthy adult humans can survive bites. Even a dog can. But it seems cats and dogs are much more vulnerable to tarantula venom then humans. Venoms can't be compared too much to prove adaptability. Because the effects of venom on animals depends on size, how the body is figured, how the antibodies are in the body, and other things. We survive venoms some animals can't, whereas other animals can survive much better.




Arietans said:


> The argument is not intelligence, its adaptability.


Adaptability now? I though it was 'survival of the fittest'. Again, we adapt the environment not ourselves... Our behaviour, not our blood pressure... Our technology, not our fingernail length.


----------



## bugmankeith (Nov 1, 2006)

Wow cant believe this is still going!


----------



## Arietans (Nov 2, 2006)

> Yes it does. And its not just modern 'technology' we're talking about. Look at the fertile crescent. Farming would have been ineffective in much of it, but the people there 'channeled' off the rivers to irrigate farmland. Like what.. 4000+ yrs ago? They changed the environment, nature, to their advantage. That had to alter their farming behavior to adapt to the environment. If a polar bear were to be put their, it could not alter the environment to feed itself. It does not posess the intelligence. We humans can 'adapt' our behavior with technology to live in every corner of the globe. NO other animal can.


Exactly, animals don't need to. 



> They could fly over in a helicopter... They could use heat sensing equipment at night... But they don't. Its for sport.


There is a reason why game counts are done in the winter mate. Summer is hunting season and I will give you money if you can spot a trophy from a helicopter by any means.



> Venoms are very tricky to compare. With our bigger bodies, can be very effective in surviving bites/stings. Things like Black Widows are not as bad as people think. Healthy adult humans can survive bites. Even a dog can. But it seems cats and dogs are much more vulnerable to tarantula venom then humans. Venoms can't be compared too much to prove adaptability. Because the effects of venom on animals depends on size, how the body is figured, how the antibodies are in the body, and other things. We survive venoms some animals can't, whereas other animals can survive much better.


uhm...... the dog survives a bite with its smaller body and without AV where the same bite would've killed you    




> Adaptability now? I though it was 'survival of the fittest'. Again, we adapt the environment not ourselves... Our behaviour, not our blood pressure... Our technology, not our fingernail length.


Adaptability will dictate how easily you will survive in a given situation. I.e. survival



You speak of things you see on t.v. Take your technology and go live in the bush for a month. Then come back here


----------



## rm90 (Nov 2, 2006)

I read this report that the temperatures in the ocean are rising due to global warming.. and things are dying such as coral reefs and certain types of fish. Perhaps this change is having something to do with the change of stingrays behavior.. I  dont know


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 2, 2006)

Arietans said:


> You speak of things you see on t.v. Take your technology and go live in the bush for a month. Then come back here


I don't have cable. So no, I don't see this stuff on TV. You don't get the whole picture. If I wanted to survive in the bush using technology, I'd drive a tank into a field, set up whatever I wanted, and an airstrip, where I could have supplies brought in. Put up spotlights all around the camp. And of course, I'd be armed with a couple nice guns. I could set up high D. sound speakers around my camp, and why not some claymores. -See what I mean? Living with just technology is of course possible.
Living to survive, without technology, I would not be able to adapt to the bush. Only North American temperate zones. Where I could survive very long.



Arietans said:


> uhm...... the dog survives a bite with its smaller body and without AV where the same bite would've killed you


Humans DO NOT require AV to survive black widow venom. Healthy adult humans will get over the bite 90% of the time within a matter of days. 
Besides, AV we invented. We're allowed to use it. 
Tarantula venom will seriously injure dogs and cats. Not humans.




Arietans said:


> Adaptability will dictate how easily you will survive in a given situation. I.e. survival


Ah ah. Now lets play it your way. If its adaptability, every human around the globe, (that is capable of it) lets say they are surviving in their given climate. Now, we look at how humans are in every corner of the globe. 
If we took crocodiles, gorillas, deer, puff adders, red foxes, and lemmings. And put them around the world. They'd die in most other climate zones in the world. Now again, look at humans, we're all over the world. Now who's adapted the most?


----------



## Arietans (Nov 2, 2006)

> Living to survive, without technology, I would not be able to adapt to the bush. Only North American temperate zones.


That is exactly the point! Without your technology you cannot survive. You are not adaptable without technology.




> Humans DO NOT require AV to surive black widow venom. Healthy adult humans will get over the bite 90% of the time within a matter of days.
> Besides, AV we invented. We're allowed to use it.
> Tarantula venom will seriously injure dogs and cats. Not humans.


But we do require AV for Puff Adders etc. Which a dog does not.



> Ah ah. Now lets play it your way. If its adaptability, every human around the globe, (that is capable of it) lets say they are surviving in their given climate. Now, we look at how humans are in every corner of the globe.
> If we took crocodiles, gorillas, deer, puff adders, red foxes, and lemmings. And put them around the world. They'd die in most other climate zones in the world. Now again, look at humans, we're all over the world. Now who's adapted the most?


Each animal living in all these environments are better suited for living there. You find crocs almost everywhere. What let's you believe that a Nile Crocodile won't survive in Florida?
Puff adders are the most common venomous snake in Africa. From mountain tops to sea level in some of the most diverse environments out there. What makes you believe it won't survive on another continent? A Rinkhals (snake) can still thermo regulate a body temperature of 32 degrees Celsius when the temperature is around ten degrees Celsius. So even a fairly cold environment will still let it thrive. Red foxes live in the tube tunnels of London right out to the woods, so why not anywhere else?

Its harder for an animal to cross the ocean than it is for us.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 2, 2006)

Arietans said:


> That is exactly the point! Without your technology you cannot survive. You are not adaptable without technology.


But we humans made technology! We can use it! If a chimpanzee uses a stick to get fire ants, isn't that 'technology'? Where do you draw the line?




Arietans said:


> But we do require AV for Puff Adders etc. Which a dog does not.


There's nothing wrong with using AV, its ours. We can survive what dogs can with AV, AND more.



Arietans said:


> Each animal living in all these environments are better suited for living there. You find crocs almost everywhere. What let's you believe that a Nile Crocodile won't survive in Florida?


I'm very confident it could, but how about Greenland?



Arietans said:


> Puff adders are the most common venomous snake in Africa. From mountain tops to sea level in some of the most diverse environments out there. What makes you believe it won't survive on another continent?


Alaska?



Arietans said:


> A Rinkhals (snake) can still thermo regulate a body temperature of 32 degrees Celsius when the temperature is around ten degrees Celsius. So even a fairly cold environment will still let it thrive.


Try antarctica.



Arietans said:


> Red foxes live in the tube tunnels of London right out to the woods, so why not anywhere else?



How about the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. (We surive there too).



Arietans said:


> Its harder for an animal to cross the ocean than it is for us.


Doesn't matter. We've adapted to the fact that there are oceans, and altered our behavior to cross them.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 2, 2006)

This argument is an excercise in futility and I am very sick of it. Believe what you will, think what you will. I care not.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 2, 2006)

Arietans said:


> This argument is an excercise in futility and I am very sick of it. Believe what you will, think what you will. I care not.


If thats all you thought of the argument.
You are obviously very set in your opinion. If you care not of this argument, cya.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 2, 2006)

There isn't much else mate. I have little time to banter words on a meaningless argument.

You are set in yours mate.

Read Sun Tsu's "Art of War" if you get a chance. Overestimating your abilities or underestimating another's is a bad strategy. Thinking that humans are the top is an overestimation. Thinking nature is beneath you is an underestimation.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 2, 2006)

Arietans said:


> You are set in yours mate.


The point of an argument is to conflict viewpoints. I very much respect your opinion, and did not end this argument with a bad attitude. 

If you believe everything I said is wrong, and everything you said is right.
Then yes, this argument is futile, and there is no point in continuing this argument. 

For the record. Like I said, I'm a christian. And I firmly believe man was put in charge of animals. Believe what you will.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 2, 2006)

I am not angry. really. Not in the least.

We both have conflicting opinions. I find it a good thing. But technically, we are running around in circles. 

I apologize if I offended you, but english is my third language and I struggle to make my point sometimes.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 2, 2006)

Arietans said:


> We both have conflicting opinions. I find it a good thing. But technically, we are running around in circles.


That's fine, I agree.
Cya

-Sean


----------



## thisgal (Nov 4, 2006)

You guys need to learn how to converse respectfully rather than argue. Things tend to turn out better this way.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Nov 4, 2006)

thisgal said:


> You guys need to learn how to converse respectfully rather than argue. Things tend to turn out better this way.


Look at how the argument got started, it was kind of hard to slow it down.


----------



## Arietans (Nov 5, 2006)

> Look at how the argument got started, it was kind of hard to slow it down.


LOL Ain't that the truth


----------



## acetharula28 (Oct 6, 2008)

steves death was sad but i find it kinda funny that all the stingrays have gone completley mad.


----------



## crpy (Oct 6, 2008)

acetharula28 said:


> steves death was sad but i find it kinda funny that all the stingrays have gone completley mad.


Well sense this thread is from 2006, I think all the stingrays in question have been hunted down and made into soup.:liar:


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 6, 2008)

acetharula28 said:


> steves death was sad but i find it kinda funny that all the stingrays have gone completley mad.


1) This thread is two years old, way to go.

2) No, they didn't freaking "go mad." It's just that nobody cared about stingray attacks until a famous person died from one, and THEN suddenly every time someone gets stung the news freaks out and makes sure we know about it. People who don't comprehend the media (and think the sky is falling every time the news starts focusing on crap like this for ratings) make me bonkers.

3) It's not "funny" either way.


----------

