polar-grizz

[Nash]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The 'assumption' refers to the thought by the party of the second part that the party of the first part would not pay for murder.

The 'implication' is the meaning gleaned by the party of the second part that the party of the first part held human and other animal life equal in value.

Independant yet somewhat related thoughts about two seperate subjects.

Note: It is possible to be independant of one's brother, yet somewhat related.

Lol.

Is it really possible to seperate the two parts? The "implication" was colored by his "assumption." The "asumption" based in large part on the "implication."

I think that if you remove either one of these things, then the argument crumbles like a house of cards. For (real) example:

We've both been here long enough to know that Curval is far from "nutty."

But "nutty" was the case that  Bruno was trying to make when he employed the words "assumption" and "implication."

Something doesn't give. Could it be that Curval is really nutty?

Really?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I'll bet the one who killed "Grizzly Man" had some fun.  That guy was a complete whacko.

I dont think i have heard that story, but i bet the guy that got killed did something to piss off the bear or one of her cubs. Perhaps he stored food close to him that was not properly secured. I doubt the beer (hehe) killed him just to be an a-hole

[Holden McGroin]

Nilsen,

there is a documentary called "Grizzly Man" which cronicles the life of a man who lived among Grizzlys in Alaska for like a decade or maybe better.  He made the rounds of late nite TV talk shows, and thought he knew the bears better than anyone else. (He probably did)

Eventually he lost it and went off the deep end.  There are places in the documentary where he wails profanely on about how bad human beings are, then only a few seconds later he records a second take where he is reserved and thoughtful talking of the beauty of the nature that surrounds him.  An obvious case of some sort of mental disorder, as lay diagnosed by yours truely.

He ends up being devoured along with his girlfriend, the audio of whole scene being recorded by his camera.

[Nilsen]

oh yes..

I have heard it afterall. A norwegian guy that is quite famous for his expeditions in alaska and canada with dogs was on a "talk show" here. I only caught half the show but he said something about this guy.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
Lol.

Is it really possible to seperate the two parts?  

Yeah, it was relatively easy.

We've both been here long enough to know that Curval is far from "nutty."

But "nutty" was the case that  Bruno was trying to make when he employed the words "assumption" and "implication."

Bruno said "Sounds 'nutty' to me..." refering to an idea, not a person.

One can say a nutty thing every once in a while without being nutty.  Take you for example... uh on second thought,

[Nash]

Very funny.

... and on that note - I'm off to bed. Cheers!

[Bruno]

"Granted that's an assumption on my part. However, his statement also implies..."

Your assumption.... implies something to you?

That's probably supposed to mean something to you. Don't expect it to mean anything to me.

Play the clown all you want but I will help you once more.

Read this first:

He is exaggerating in that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed. Granted that's an assumption on my part.

My assumption is that he was only exaggerating that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed.

There is no assumption to later part:

However, his statement also implies that the value of the bear and the human are some how equal.

There's a clear implication that in:

I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?

That he is equating the same value to the hunter as the bear.

Put the dope down?

That's rich...

It's more then 'rich' it appears accurate seeing how you are struggling to make sense of three sentences.

[Nash]

1) He is exaggerating in that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed. Granted that's an assumption on my part.

2) My assumption is that he was only exaggerating that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed.

3) There is no assumption to later part:

4) However, his statement also implies that the value of the bear and the human are some how equal.

5) There's a clear implication that in:

6) "I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?"

7) That he is equating the same value to the hunter as the bear.


Jesious...

[Bruno]

Bruno said "Sounds 'nutty' to me..." refering to an idea, not a person.

Well Nash has trouble going from point A to B.

Nash said:

You act like he's losing his mind or something.

My reply was:

Sounds 'nutty' to me... Sure he's exaggerating, but equating the dumb bear with a human life is 'nutty'.

So what is 'nutty'? Curval? No, this statement:

I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?

[Nash]

Yeah, Curval is going to pay money to shoot somebody.

Perhaps you are missing something here?

[Sparks]

Toad,  I'm surprised you don't see a difference between your hunting of Game birds and the guys hunting of Polar Bears.

To my own personal, unqualified, opinion hunting is fine if it is :-
1. Humane (an efficient and decisive kill)
2. Not risking the animals population
3. Not gratuitous (usually involving some skill and making use of the kill after).

Hunting pheasant:-
1. A shotgun is perfectly efficient bringing down a bird.
2. There's more pheasant than we need
3. Shooting a flying bird takes considerable skill and if you don't eat the pheasant yourself they probably go to freinds etc.
Meets all three ....

Hunting a Polar Bear:-
1. High power rifle is no garuantee of bringing down a large bear.
2. They are endangered and melting ice is putting them further at risk.
3. Being guided to the bear and shooting a slow moving ground animal from a distance with a scope requires little skill and the reward is purely egotistical.
Fails on all three......

Going back to pheasant.  If you winged em with a catapult, piled them in a heap in the field, wiped their blod on your face to celebrate your manlihood and went home to eat your store chicken after then yes you would be Dr Evil ..... somehow I don't see that.

[storch]

Originally posted by Curval
A hunter paid $50,000 to kill polar bears?  I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?

typical illogical liberal.  it's ok to kill a fellow human for doing what we humans have naturally done since God put us on the earth.  the thing is that what you want to do do that hunter is also something we have done to each other since the beginning but I would place my bet on the hunter not a pink or lavander short wearing scooter riding accountant.  

[Curval]

lol...it IS natural for humans to hunt in order to eat.  It is totally unnatural to do so for the pure thrill of killing.  That is something that separates us (humans) from the "animals".

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Curval
lol...it IS natural for humans to hunt in order to eat.  It is totally unnatural to do so for the pure thrill of killing.  That is something that separates us (humans) from the "animals".

There are animals that kill for reasons other than sustainance.

House cats kill mice and then bring the "trophy" back to the house and present it to you.  It is unnessesary to kill the mouse, but the cat gets something out of it.  The fulfillment of the hunting instinct perhaps.

Fulfillment of any primordial instinct can be pleasureable, perhaps something akin to the pleasure we get from recreational sex: an act unnesessary to the preservation of the species, but pleasurable none the less.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by ujustdied
so when was the last time a polar bear acually ate or killed a person.

Ever hear the phrase, "Dead men tell no tales" ?