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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?