It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good Samaritans Face Fine After Rescuing Deer From Icy Water

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Humans are a part of nature, therefor these people's actions - helping a deer that is struggling to survive - can be considered a "natural" reaction.

Manimals can not "interfere" with nature or natural selection any more than that deer can "interfere" with nature. We are all a part of the same system.
edit on 17-12-2010 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem


No a lack of certain survival instincs put the deer on the ice. Peoples lack of knowledge about natural things drove them to "save the day" when in fact all they did was give the deer a few more days of survival but yet risked others safety. This was not a person but a deer, nor was it a pet but it was a wild natural deer. Natural selection is needed in nature to ensure that good genetics continue to pass throught a species, they interferred that is all ther is to it.


Do you seriously believe the tripe you type? It was just some people who cared about the deer...I would have bagged/tagged the damn thing and be eating it Monday...but it was their conscience that drove them to do what they did.

I am awestruck at your comments since it's been some time since I've seen comments that reek of such control over others based on an opinion with little if any fact to base said opinion on.

Better hope you don't fall through the ice, bubba. At least a deer is worth saving.


I can do this all night. Ad hominem attacks by stating "Better hope you don't fall through the ice, bubba. At least a deer is worth saving." are going to do no good. I don't get riled up very easy. So please stay on topic.

I do believe in what I am saying. This is not an issue of controlling another person, but yet one of looking out for people. Had they had been unlucky enough to get stuck themselves then the officer plus others would have had to rescue them. The lives of all of those involved are not worth the life of the one deer that was being culled by nature itself. Had if have been a person then yes save them without a doubt.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
So you guys that say they should have let the deer die:
If it was you and your friend there would you just stand there and watch the deer struggle and die?

What sadists you must be!


What exactly makes you think that at any time they were in danger?
And just who else would have gotten hurt?

The officer giving them a ticket is just another example of the mindless robots that wear uniforms that have badges pinned to them.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Humans are a part of nature, therefor these people's actions - helping a deer that is struggling to survive - can be considered a "natural" reaction.

Manimals can not "interfere" with nature or natural selection any more than that deer can "interfere" with nature. We are all a part of the same system.
edit on 17-12-2010 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)


People, you just are not getting it. The deer WILL die anyways. It will die due to a lack of certain instincts. People risking their lives and others to save a "DEAD" deer is rediculous. Yes people want to help, but sometimes helping is the worse thing you can do.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Ice + water = hypothermia real fast, so yes they were in danger. They were in danger. No, don't just stand there and watch, go do something else and let nature do it's thing.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Using your logic, all hunting should be outlawed because it is a form of unnatural selection. How do you justify that?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
Wow, some arrogant and ignorant people about- both posting here and in the case of the article. So what about if you had a car accident, for example. The roads were icey, you skidded off the road and hit a tree, as a result you were trapped. Definitely should leave you there by your logic, you should have known to take the corner slower because of the adverse weather. What about if you had/have kids, and your child wondered off. By chance, he/she wondered into the middle of the road and was ran over. A group of strangers did see the entire event, but going by their logic, by attempting to pull him/her out of the way of the on-going car, they were statistically more likely to have died themselves and only created further carnage. After-all, if a parent can't teach their child not to wonder off into the road, and the parent can't keep an eye on their child, this "thing" is not worthy of remaining in the gene-pool, correct?

It's called having some humanity and acting decently. I know about game theory and all that- society would be a much more efficient place if we all acted selfishly- but would it be a more pleasant place to live? I think not.
edit on 17-12-2010 by ScepticalBeliever because: typo


It is a deer being culled by nature. This is not the same thing that you are talking about. Yes save a person, no do not save an animal that is going to die naturally anyways due to a lack of genetics.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
I can do this all night. Ad hominem attacks by stating "Better hope you don't fall through the ice, bubba. At least a deer is worth saving." are going to do no good. I don't get riled up very easy. So please stay on topic.

I do believe in what I am saying. This is not an issue of controlling another person, but yet one of looking out for people. Had they had been unlucky enough to get stuck themselves then the officer plus others would have had to rescue them. The lives of all of those involved are not worth the life of the one deer that was being culled by nature itself. Had if have been a person then yes save them without a doubt.


Unfortunately, I didn't present an ad hominem attack. I merely made a statement that could most certainly be perceived as rude but was most certainly not a direct attack on your person. I can provide you with a link to explain what an ad hominem attack is if need be.

I gather you missed the point where I indicated I not only care nothing for the deer but would have relegated it to my freezer rather than doing what these people did.

I fail to see how you can indicate this isn't about controlling other people when that is the very crux of your argument? Your argument is that these individuals risked their lives and could potentially have cost the lives of others to save theirs should their rescue attempt have failed. OK, sure. So based on that twisted logic you figure they should be fined? They did what they thought was right and it was their right to do so.

So based on your logic, if any individual were to attempt to help an animal but the process of doing so could potentially require said individual to require the assistance of others to rescue the initial individual...the individual in question acted out of line and should be fined and/or prosecuted?

I am NOT an animal lover by any stretch of the imagination. I am however, a freedom lover and one who thinks if you go out to rescue a deer on the ice and drown? Sucks to be you.

Should I go out on the ice to rescue my dog and perish? Sucks to be me...but I'm gonna try.
edit on 17-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Using your logic, all hunting should be outlawed because it is a form of unnatural selection. How do you justify that?


Ahh but it is, only the smartest and the most genetically sound animals tend to make it through hunting season, just like water buffalo on the savanna being hunted by lions. Hunting for food is natural and those that just trophy hunt usually hunt on game ranches these days, those places where nothing is natural there fore they are not impacting the natural selection of nature.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
"if you don't convince them at first, repeat it until they get bored to death"

no ad hominem dude, but your "progress" goes the same way as mj's moonwalk.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   


The lives of all of those involved are not worth the life of the one deer that was being culled by nature itself. Had if have been a person then yes save them without a doubt.


So, what makes a person worth saving instead of the deer?
"second line"



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


WTF?? I rescue woodland box turtles from the road ...I guess there is a natural selection depend on if a ford or chevy smash it. Those turtles commonly live to be 100 years old. Man has many effects on nature some negative some positive .....
edit on 17-12-2010 by fnpmitchreturns because: grammer



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
I can do this all night. Ad hominem attacks by stating "Better hope you don't fall through the ice, bubba. At least a deer is worth saving." are going to do no good. I don't get riled up very easy. So please stay on topic.

I do believe in what I am saying. This is not an issue of controlling another person, but yet one of looking out for people. Had they had been unlucky enough to get stuck themselves then the officer plus others would have had to rescue them. The lives of all of those involved are not worth the life of the one deer that was being culled by nature itself. Had if have been a person then yes save them without a doubt.


Unfortunately, I didn't present an ad hominem attack. I merely made a statement that could most certainly be perceived as rude but was most certainly not a direct attack on your person. I can provide you with a link to explain what an ad hominem attack is if need be.

I gather you missed the point where I indicated I not only care nothing for the deer but would have relegated it to my freezer rather than doing what these people did.

I fail to see how you can indicate this isn't about controlling other people when that is the very crux of your argument? Your argument is that these individuals risked their lives and could potentially have cost the lives of others to save theirs should their rescue attempt have failed. OK, sure. So based on that twisted logic you figure they should be fined? They did what they thought was right and it was their right to do so.

So based on your logic, if any individual were to attempt to help an animal but the process of doing so could potentially require said individual to require the assistance of others to rescue the initial individual...the individual in question acted out of line and should be fined and/or prosecuted?

I am NOT an animal lover by any stretch of the imagination. I am however, a freedom lover and one who thinks if you go out to rescue a deer on the ice and drown? Sucks to be you.


It is real simple, they went into icey water.. CHECK
Deer was in icey water due to a lack of instincts.. CHECK
Conservation officer was present on the scene.. CHECK
Conservation officer chose not to rescue animal.. CHECK
2 people went against what the conservation officer felt was best.. CHECK
Icey water kills people.. CHECK
Rescuing people in icey water puts more people at risk than those who need rescuing.. CHECK
People were cited for putting their lifes and others at risk.. CHECK

Show me where some one was trying to control some one. It sounds to me like the conservation officer did not want to have to put his life on the line to rescue a deer that will die anyways and did not want to have to do a water rescue if these people became stuck. It really looks like self preservation and looking out for the safety of others.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


I'll repeat what someone else said in this thread before; how can you be sure of why the deer was on the ice in the first place? Perhaps it was because a human startled it- in which case, going by your rule of "humans and their actions are not a part of nature" it should not and would not have been there in the first place. Also, natural selection does still apply to human life to an extent, and of course will have done greatly in the past. As a result, saying "it's a deer, human life is not relevant" when you have made such sweeping generalisations in your inplications previously makes no sense.

Who are you to judge what form of life is more important, anyway? We have caused more devastation, both needlessly to ourselves and to the rest of the planet, than any other species. One could argue, as a result of this seeming lack of regard for any form of life, including our own, our lives are the least valuable of all.

I don't understand how you can be so arrogant as to say what someone can be allowed to do with their life in this instance, and additionally, seemingly instantaneously assume that your understanding of the events are correct. You can't be sure, it's just plain ignorance.
edit on 17-12-2010 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


I'll repeat what someone else said in this thread before; how can you be sure of why the deer was on the ice in the first place? Perhaps it was because a human startled it- in which case, going by your rule of "humans and their actions are not a part of nature" it should not and would not have been there in the first place. Also, natural selection does still apply to human life to an extent, and of course will have done greatly in the past. As a result, saying "it's a deer, human life is not relevant" when you have made such sweeping generalisations in your inplications previously makes no sense.

Who are you to judge what form of life is more important, anyway? We have caused more devastation, both needlessly to ourselves and to the rest of the planet, than any other species. One could argue, as a result of this seeming lack of regard for any form of life, including our own, our lives are the least valuable of all.

I don't understand how you can be so arrogant as to say what someone can be allowed to do with their life in this instance, and additionally, seemingly instantaneously assume that your understanding of the events are correct. You can't be sure, it's just plain ignorance.
edit on 17-12-2010 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)


If the deer ran to water when it is freezing outside due to being startled then it's natural instincts were not present. I am not saying what some one can do with their life, but, the conservation officer and others that would have to rescue a person even if that persons actions were ignorant has to put their lifes on the line just to do that then who is controling who?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Don't uou think they were old enough to know what they were doing?
They knew about breaking the ice for the deed to work its way out, so they were not stupid kids.

I'm apalled that anyone could just turn their back on a helpless creature when they have the knowledge and the means of helping it.
If you think that this is nature's way, then why do we go to such lengths to help humans who get themselves in life threatening conditions....like those who climb mountains and then get stuck up there in the cold.
Shouldn't we just leave them there, since they lack the instincts to know there is danger in that sort of activity?
That would clean up the human gene pool a bit wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Ahh but it is, only the smartest and the most genetically sound animals tend to make it through hunting season, just like water buffalo on the savanna being hunted by lions. Hunting for food is natural and those that just trophy hunt usually hunt on game ranches these days, those places where nothing is natural there fore they are not impacting the natural selection of nature.


Obviously you have never hunted and are an armchair know-it-all. You are most likely a bookworm who thinks you know reality but has little experience with what happens beyond your front door.

I was once just like you and am grateful to no longer be. It took years to break me of that ignorant, arrogant and self indulgent mindset...but eventually did once getting outside and getting my hands dirty.

I'm sure the Discovery Channel and National Geographic give you what you perceive as a basis in logic but you might want to head outside and see how the real world works.

Back on topic, some folks gave a crap about a deer and saved it. They got ticketed for doing so by an individual who sat there until the deer was let go rather than him warn them up front about the "laws" they'd be breaking by attempting to save the deer. "Warn" them???????

This conversation has eroded to a point that continuing it truly defies logic for those who deem themselves competent adults and deem themselves capable of making a decision on their own without some bookworm telling them how they should have done it.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


thank you for having the patience to repeat the point Leader chose to ignore.

and you're absolutly right. no one is titled to pick wich lifeform is important.
and even there, last time i checked, between us and animals, we are the ones causing harm to the planet, nature and any natural balance.
some could call us cancer too, but let's not attract the eugenics crowd here too.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Don't uou think they were old enough to know what they were doing?
They knew about breaking the ice for the deed to work its way out, so they were not stupid kids.

I'm apalled that anyone could just turn their back on a helpless creature when they have the knowledge and the means of helping it.
If you think that this is nature's way, then why do we go to such lengths to help humans who get themselves in life threatening conditions....like those who climb mountains and then get stuck up there in the cold.
Shouldn't we just leave them there, since they lack the instincts to know there is danger in that sort of activity?
That would clean up the human gene pool a bit wouldn't it?


The reason the deer was in the water was due to a lack of natural instincts. It is that simple. It needs to die in order to prevent deffective genes from being further introduced into the deer population. This is a deer not a person, I understand that alot of people have a hard time with the concept but it is a fact. I am all for rescuing people, due to the fact that the person or their offspring, that you rescued might be the one that cures cancer or some other terminal illness. The deer will do none of these things. It is a deer.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Teh deer did not need do die. And how exactly do you know that its apparent 'lack of natural instincts' was the only reason it was on the ice?

So you're saying that whenever people makes mistakes, they deserve to die?

And just cause the deer wil not cure cancer or send people to mars does not mean it should not have the right to live.
edit on 17-12-2010 by Senz20 because: justification



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join