The wolf and the Herd

Humans are story- driven animals, morals and ethics falls into the same category, what you been told is what you believe, its part of our heritage from mother nature, mother to daughter or son. Its lessons in survival no more and no less.
What happens when you as a child been told the story of the " Boy who screamed wolf ". What was the intent of the story, what was the purpose? Could the story have a metaphysical message, a transcending thought? Or was it just a wolf who wanted a meal for the day, that slaughtered the shepherds herd?

The shepherd guarding his flock and a wolf, does the parable ever cross your mind? Like i said in the first sentence, humans are story- driven animals.
The wolf becomes a threat to humans and their story- driven world, and what is remembered is the story of " A boy who screamed wolf ", kill the wolves before the hurt the herd is all you see that is left, the moral of the story was suddenly changed.

The folk tales we tell are stories to warn us of the dangers that lies ahead, be cautious but not afraid, but humans forget their past that they once were a part of the same kingdom as the wolf. With thunder sticks they chase mothers creations, not the sick, nor the old, Instead its for their own joy.
What once was a story about the herd and the shepherd, changed into the " Hunter and his dominion ".

I hope i never live another year to see Wolves being chased by humans for their own glory, with an excuse of ancient stories.

a reply to: tikbalang

What? The boy lies, that's why nobody believes him when the wolve really comes. That's what the story is about.

a reply to: Peeple

The message of the moral of the story is dont tell a lie, the second part a wolf is dangerous.. Humans lie a lot, so what do they remember instead?

a reply to: tikbalang

I entirely don't get what you are saying. People back in the time the story was written knew wolves are dangerous. In fact the wolve became a symbol for evil. That's why he is used in the story.

...and they remember getting eaten? Where are you going with this?

a reply to: Peeple

Why is Shark dangerous? Why is a crocodile dangerous, why is bear dangerous? Why, why?

Do you know a wolf is dangerous? Or do you rely on the stories?

a reply to: Peeple

I've never used that story to teach about lies but I can see why others might see that as the moral. When I tell it though it is about attention seeking and there being better ways of getting attention than "crying wolf", but most importantly, for me, the moral is that busy people working hard to survive soon tire of time wasters.

For me the story has never been about the wolf, who is after all just being a wolf.

a reply to: tikbalang

Of course wolves are dangerous in certain circumstances.
Try walking alone near a wolf pack while injured and bleeding, do you disagree?
Or are you saying wolves pose the same risk to humans as sheep do?

*edit*
Oh sharks and crocodiles are dangerous for the same reason as wolves, sharp teeth.
Did you not know that?

a reply to: grainofsand

Hmans are dangerous Animals, doesnt mean anyone should suffer for it

a reply to: tikbalang

I agree and haven't advocated that any animal should suffer.
So what is your thread supposed to be about then?
Your ramblings about parables etc could really have been condensed to a simple "I'm against needlessly hunting and killing animals" which I would agree with.
Trying to argue that in no circumstances should dangerous animals be killed is frankly ridiculous in my opinion.

Not quite as ridiculous as implying wolves are not dangerous but ridiculous nonetheless.

a reply to: grainofsand

Depends if you base your own opinion on experience or stories, I do believe most people base their experience on fables. Most stories are parables if they don't have a scientific approach to them, problem lies when you assume with your own experience " I'm against ".

You are entitled to any belief, assumption or opinion, but try to make them on your own life experience.

a reply to: tikbalang

I base all my opinions on experience first and second from verifiable sources.
Why do you believe most people form opinions based on parables?
Do you live in some rural backwater developing country or something?

Wolves are dangerous in certain circumstances, that is a fact. No parable needed just simple observation.

So again I ask, what point are you trying to make in this thread?
Are you just saying don't use parables to form an opinion?

a reply to: grainofsand

You base all your experiences on verifiable sources..

Ive seen numerous do the same, but my experience is based on when they blow themselves up or run amok with a gun screaming something incoherent cause it makes sense to them.. I hope you don't fall into the same category..

I stated in my OP, the meaning of the story changes when a human has a self interest in something, use stereotypes built by stories to make an excuse..

Hitler, Stalin, Mao.. I could make this list long, or you could try to achieve more life experiences instead on relying on " verifiable sources "

a reply to: tikbalang

What on earth are you talking about now?
Why the Hitler reference?
Are you drunk or something?

*edit*
Do you even understand what 'verifiable' means?

a reply to: grainofsand

Etymology:

adj.) 1590s, from verify + -able. Related: Verifiably; verifiability.

Etymology

verify (v.) early 14c., from Old French verifier "substantiate, find out the truth about" (14c.), from Medieval Latin verificare "make true," from Latin verus "true" (see very) + root of facere "to make" (see factitious).

Etymology

-able common termination and word-forming element of English adjectives (typically based on verbs) and generally adding a notion of "capable of; allowed; worthy of; requiring; to be ______ed," sometimes "full of, causing," from French -able and directly from Latin -abilis. It is properly -ble, from Latin -bilis (the vowel being generally from the stem ending of the verb being suffixed), and it represents PIE *-tro-, a suffix used to form nouns of instrument, cognate with the second syllables of English rudder and saddle (n.). A living element in English, used in new formations from either Latin or native words (readable, bearable) and also with nouns (objectionable, peaceable). Sometimes with an active signification (suitable, capable), sometimes of neutral signification (durable, conformable). It has become very elastic in meaning, as in a reliable witness, a playable foul ball, perishable goods. To take a single example in detail, no-one but a competent philologist can tell whether reasonable comes from the verb or the noun reason, nor whether its original sense was that can be reasoned out, or that can reason, or that can be reasoned with, or that has reason, or that listens to reason, or that is consistent with reason; the ordinary man knows only that it can now mean any of these, & justifiably bases on these & similar facts a generous view of the termination's capabilities; credible meaning for him worthy of credence, why should not reliable & dependable mean worthy of reliance & dependence? [Fowler] In Latin, infinitives in -are took -abilis, others -ibilis. Hence the variant form -ible in Old French, Spanish, English. In English, -able tends to be used with native (and other non-Latin) words, -ible with words of obvious Latin origin (but there are exceptions). The Latin suffix is not etymologically connected with able, but it long has been popularly associated with it, and this probably has contributed to its vigor as a living suffix.

Etymology

Heaven, is a verifiable fact to many, raping a baby if you have HIV is a verifiable fact to some in parts of Africa, 72 Virgins is a verifiable fact to some, Kim Jong Un was brought down to earth by a Unicorn verifiable fact to some.. Experience in life is really great if you use it properly

a reply to: tikbalang

Heaven is not verifiable, you are being ridiculous now and making yourself look silly.
The rest of your pathetic examples of something verifiable I shall dismiss as the ramblings of a drunk or uneducated person.

a reply to: grainofsand

Anthropology? I'm trying to make a point that a subjective view doesn't make anything into fact..

Just cause you don't understand much of the world outside your "verification" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I'm sure you are " well educated "

a reply to: tikbalang

Again you make no sense.
If I can verify something then I will accept it as potential fact.
which bit of verify are you struggling to understand?

a reply to: tikbalang

And no, you rambled on about parables and wolves, and I don't think even you know what the thread is supposed to be about.
You appear to be making it up as you go along.

a reply to: grainofsand

Well, you are looking for an argument to verify your stereotypes while I'm saying get some life experience and stop believing in stories and stereotypes.. Explain how fact occurs? Explain how you verify anything?

What is your highest education?

a reply to: tikbalang

No, all of that is your invention, what stereotypes?
I've said I form opinions based on experience or if claims can be verified, what possible issue could you have with that?
Oh and Bsc degree level, not that it influences our discussion. Your thread is poor, your argument is poor, and your ramblings make you look silly, but I find some amusement engaging with you.

...so how about those wolves, dangerous or not? Lol