Printable View
okay, I know I said I wouldn't post here anymore, but:
where did I say anything about needing a knife?.. what I described wouldn't need a knife... and in face would be just as fast without one...
and also why is the realism lacking in Africa? as there are still people living that way in Africa ... shouldn't it be more realistic happening in Africa then?
Oy! Here we go with the "Hippo Argument" again.
Though I took part in the hippo argument, and still have absolutely no idea what the heck it's supposed to prove, I agree. This "Hippo argument" has no place in this thread, drop it and move on. Or heck, at least replace the hippo with another animal, I'm just about sick and tired of hippos.Quote:
Originally posted by DarkElf
Oy! Here we go with the "Hippo Argument" again.
And I've said in plain english numerous times that this has nothing to do with hunting, to which you agreed, and yet the conversation continues. I won't lie, it's quite annoying.Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
The realism is lacking in the situation that the human would overpower the animals on his own.
As for you and knives, it's hardly as effective using a stone as it is to using a knife. The top part snapped off one of the cues we used for pool at school, and we were left with a jagged edge to play with. We made an effort at making the end more manageable by messing about with it and a stone - and we were not successful! With a knife we easily could've got an even surface.
As for making a point with the wood, that was tried before people realised how stupid an idea that was. It was not easy at all to make a decent point with stone.
Pnt: I explained in basic English what I proved just a few posts ago. I can't put it in any simpler terms than that.
The hippo was an arbitrary part of the argument. 'Hippo' could be replaced by 'elephant' quite easily.
I still don't see the big deal with arrogance. It also has little to do with hunting.Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I know >_< , I was simply proving that humans are too arrogant sometimes.
We stopped discussing the original topic perhaps 100 posts ago! To be honest I don't see much point continuing since we have made zero progress since we began a month or so ago.
You can say whatever you like about arrogant hunters who sometimes piss you off, but since that can not be said about every hunter, I don't see the relevance.
My cousin dear hunts and he believes every animal is equal, But it's a fight for your life when hunting, The greater opponent wins.Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I've yet to meet a hunter who didn't think he or she was better than the animals. And, as I said, arrogance is one of those things that really, really bugs me.
Though if you say that when hunting is bad and everything/everyone should be equal what about sports?
The weakest lose, the strongest win, In most cases, chance and luck can make a factor on it however..
In hunting the hunter gets what he wants, the prey
In sporting the greater team gets what they want, Victory
Does it really? I'd never have guessed....Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
arrogance is one of those things that really, really bugs me.
I think we're in need of a lesson here.
Humans are, and always will be the dominant species. Nothing will change that, no matter what anyone says.
Sure, human v lion in a pure brawn fight, the lion's obviously gonna win because it has teeth and claws, both of which humans do not have. But why must you insist on basing everything on physical strength? If you stepped back and looked at the bigger picture, you'd notice that almost everything in this world is made by humans. The house you're living in, the computer you're reading this on, the cars, busses, trains we transport ourselves places on could never be built by animals as unintelligent as lions. I'm not saying non humans are stupid, but statistically, they are nothing compared to human brain power. It's time you realised that.
I posted this a few pages back, but nobody took notice, so I'm posting it again.
That is true, but that 112 can always have the right to come back with full gear and PK you, Also.Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
But humans don't even give the animal a fair chance. They're not greater than the animal at all, just they happen to have better equipment.
Kovu, you play Runescape: It's like me going into the wilderness and fighting another level 112, but me having a whip and him having nothing. Of course I'm going to win, but it's not a fair fight. Just because I have better equipment, doesn't mean I'm greater. It's the same here.
Do say.. Lions give antelope a fair chance during hunting?
In Pking for games, You hunt people (Player kill) Thus, when you attack them with 10 people with you are you giving them really a fair chance?
same with Runecraft Player Killing, they have nothing and they sit there while you attacking them due to Binding Runes, etc but that's a game, it's not fair but it is the way it goes,
Same with Hunting it may not be fair, but people have been doing it for so long well, that's the way it goes and we should just learn from it and leave it, It might not be right but souly, there is nothing you can do about it :s
Are you insane? They'll die with us :pQuote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Well, there might not be much I can do now, but thankfully after humans wipe themselves out, other animals will have a chance again ^_^ ...
Their habitat's will get either too cold or too warm due to global warming. either that or they'd eat em all, because according to you it takes 10000 of years for that prey predator cycle to work, therefore they could eat all the animals in that time trust me lmao :p
along with saying, If human's didn't survive niether would some animals, Such as endangered one's who we look after, and cats and dogs, pets etc x)
When a person move's houses and locations they are moving habitats in a human point of view,Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Not necessarily - animals are very adaptable =) ... In a lot of cases, much more so than humans.
And, I never said it takes 10000 years for predator-prey cycles to work around fully -_-; ...
If humans didn't survive, there would be no more global warming for a start. Things could start working their way back to normal.
IT takes the normal male/female human to adapt to their surroundings, what's there to eat, where to buy things, in about a week or less.
It takes a cat/dog/pet more than 2 months to understand it's new surroundsings, where to go to the bathroom and where their food is ;)
I'd say human's can adapt faster to be honest,
Placing a lion in south america would kill it
Hmm they could easily adapt as I've said, I'm usually cold, I went to aus and got used to the temp very easily might I say,
I think anyone can adapt to anything given about a week or less :p
And Human's are animal's are they not, so therefore they may fall in place of that category
I'd say that humans adapt immensely faster than almost any other animal, besides simple or single-celled organisms. We're the only known animal capable of actively adapting (ie, making concious decisions to better suit one's environment), the reason being, again, our intelligence. We can choose to make ourselves better suited to environments we encounter and then use our intelligence and tool building skill to make it happen. Likewise, as a whole, we've allowed ourselves to fly, deep dive, travel at near super-sonic ground speeds, and even leave this planet over the course of a few generations. We're the only complex species that can be seen actively evolving on a time scale that of a matter of months or years.
And an individual human would stand a much better chance in the Arctic than any other animal taken from their same general area (ie, Australia). We can make fire to keep us warm, kill animals for food and clothing, and otherwise have a marginal, but possible, chance of survival. A Kangaroo could not.
There you go basing everyone on yourself again... look, there's a saying that goes "what I can't do another can" ... I suggest you use it... because if you can't do something or you have not tried, doesn't mean others can't...Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
No, I really disagree - that's not possible. I know I couldn't go to the arctic for example and adapt so quickly - and I live in a cold place as it is! Studies have shown that some other animals are really adaptable though ^_^ ...
In your example, despite you living in a cold place, it's not as cold as the antarctic, yet it's not as cold as some places in Russia as well... yet there are people living in the antarctic
I can use your same basis and claim, well I can't skydive and never have tried it, so therefore because of that no one could possibly.. ... and yet there are people skydiving
The 'argument' as yousay being little productive is because, have you noticed that lately everyone who posted in here have posted against the same things you've been saying? yet you refuse to listen to them due to you comparing two extremes ... it's like you making the claim 'ants are strong, they can carry things many times their own weight' and we come back with the argument 'they're not strong unless they can carry a tyrantula on their own' and leave no other option ... That's the useless part, and guess what, you're the one who brought that part out... you're the one who decided, 'humans arn't strong unless they can take out a hippo' and now you turn to and blantly say 'humans can't adapt to everything because I can't adapt to living in the antarctic' ... you need to see the middle ground and stop your turning to two extremes to make a point.
I have an approach
Animals Rule Humans Rule.
I havn't really heard anyone say an animal sucked tbh.
I agree with your first paragraph. Humans can be as adaptable as other animals, as well have the ability to think and use tools. However, I believe that humans manipulte their environment to suit them. Thats the main event occuring nowadays. Humans change the environment around them to make them comfy in that area. However, should a human be only equipped with clothing (making him equal to an animal with thick fur) and then plonked in the middle of Antartica, he/she would not survive. Same as a Kangaroo.Quote:
Originally posted by Pnt
I'd say that humans adapt immensely faster than almost any other animal, besides simple or single-celled organisms. We're the only known animal capable of actively adapting (ie, making concious decisions to better suit one's environment), the reason being, again, our intelligence. We can choose to make ourselves better suited to environments we encounter and then use our intelligence and tool building skill to make it happen. Likewise, as a whole, we've allowed ourselves to fly, deep dive, travel at near super-sonic ground speeds, and even leave this planet over the course of a few generations. We're the only complex species that can be seen actively evolving on a time scale that of a matter of months or years.
And an individual human would stand a much better chance in the Arctic than any other animal taken from their same general area (ie, Australia). We can make fire to keep us warm, kill animals for food and clothing, and otherwise have a marginal, but possible, chance of survival. A Kangaroo could not.
Technically yes, but there are an awful lot of differences between your average rat and a human, for example. We may not know this, but as far as we know, most animals do not know they will one day die and they follow their instincts for survival. We have base instincts but we tend to supress most of them. Take the *primal* urge to have sex, for instance. Or the urge by most conquoring male lions to kill the young of the defeated?Quote:
Originally posted by Kovu The Lion And Human's are animal's are they not, so therefore they may fall in place of that category
Although I am one that would ordinarilly insist that we are animals too, (even if we are destroying the planet - you don't see a lot of rats doing that do you?), I have to agree that humans are a heck of a lot more different than other animals.
As Orwell once said, *All animals are Equal, but some are more Equal than others*. Tis a sad fact, but its true.Quote:
Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
I have an approach
Animals Rule Humans Rule.
I havn't really heard anyone say an animal sucked tbh.
Tell me, WHO's quote this is...Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Put a hippo in an enclosed space with a human and there will only ever be one 'winner'.
Proved dead wrong by yours truelyQuote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If humans didn't have guns or similar hunting apparatus, and we were sent into the wild to live, we would be completely screwed.
Your rebutal ... and basically stating "there's no way you could have because you arn't physically stronger than a hippo"Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Absolutely not. An average human without any 'gear' would be completely stuffed if they were sent into the wild, with hungry predators there. Sure, there may be some humans who can hold their own against a crocodile or something with no apparatus, but you couldn't do that against a two-ton hippo or something. It's just not happening.
I went on to say I know how to survive in the wild and have done so... you come back: "You say you're stronger than a hippo?" so on and so forth ... like I said it's your 'rites of passage' ...
Now here's something for you, as I know you're smart and have a high IQ... come up with a way to prove humans can't survive in the wild without going to any extremes... use only the middle ground... oh, and also without basing it soley on yourself...
It would appear that this thread has become a battle of wills...or at least a reasonable facsimile.
Quote:
Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You're the one who said you could take on a hippo and made out like it would be a walk in the park ;) ...
And, I live in a pretty cold place here. Yet I would have trouble adapting in the very coldest of places.
I think that with the proper information, even an average person could get by in most cold places. There's a difference between comfort and surviving. A group of people, maybe 100 or so, especially those with proper knowledge, can would probably along in a cold environment with time. That's the beauty of humans working together, what some lack others make up, which is one survival reason why humans are social creatures. It would take animals millions of years to adapt to many of the conditions people could face with a bit of knowledge in a couple years.
I think the best support for human adaptability is that the same species of humans live to some degree on every single continent on the face of the earth (as well as under the ocean and in space for short to very extended periods of time).
How would human adaptability follow normal distribution? It doesn't rely upon numbers in any non-strictly concept sense. Anyways, if there's one thing humans excel at, it's extremes. Quit trying to play the big words game, you'd have to back that up with sources and an explanation if you expect anyone to buy it.Quote:
Human adaptability most likely follows a normal distribution as we refer to it in statistics. It would require an extreme to adapt so easily. Perhaps several standard deviations from the mean of the distribution. In other words, to adapt so effortlessly to such an extreme condition is very, very unlikely ;) ...
No one here has said animals suck, don't put words in our mouth. Some debates are just more complex than Good vs Bad, Humans vs Animals, etc.. And the same people always disagree with you because, frankly, the same people probably always think you're wrong. People aren't going to just agree with you because they haven't agreed with you for a while now, if I think you're wrong and you're going to bring it into a debate, then I'm gonna say something. Don't expect me or anyone else in life to roll over because you expect us to agree with you. Frankly, I couldn't care less about disagreeing with you, I'd much rather we get back on the topic of hunting which no one seems very willing to do, so I figured I'd just state my opinion.Quote:
I know, it's really strange, especially considering this is a Lion King forum. I'd expect people to be less like the "humans rule, animals suck" type here. But, it seems it's not the case. In fact, I get a much more positive response to certain topics on forums to do with Runescape for goodness sake than here. I don't know if some people are disagreeing with me here just to be difficult, but it seems like they're always the same people. You'd think people agreed with me here on at least something!
I heard this a while back. It's also beneficial to the villages because it allows them to be able to protect the surrounding areas with some of that money, which also helps them preserve their way of life. I've heard that it's also been beneficial in parts of Asia, and has contributed in part to the great panda gaining a bit more of a footing.Quote:
Originally posted by lion_roog
I've read that hunting helps certain animals by making sure they have land to live on in areas where human population is growing and demanding more land. Mainly in Africa, I believe. The hunting brings in money, so the villiages in the area see it as beneficial to preserve the land and the animals due to their value. Other wise the land would be threatened by human growth and certain animals killed due to their threat to farmers in the area.
What I don't get is the point of protecting some animals in America (yes, again I'm referring to the Canadian Goose) after it's more than reached a safe number in many areas. Being a large game bird, it has quite a bit of nutritional value for a hunter, and it's also quite a nuisance in most areas. Personally, though, I don't see the Canadian Goose ever being unprotected again.