Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Bipto- the nonhumansrights. org is an advocacy group forwarding the rights for any creature to be treated fairly. It is made up of doctors, lawyers and educators not merely adhoc group of people. You should learn a little more about people before you go off. about your statement about observing, so your observations are what fleeting glimpes, some calls and footprints, an attempted shooting? Not very much to offer to base your opinion on as if you are the athority. Doubtless you not read or listened to this well thought out and established organization that have been around and been a public input to governmental panels for a number of years. As for trying use the forum for helping other in their field investigations you have offered opinions, no scientific back-up and not only that you what to kill the subject involved. Not very scientific if you ask me. As is I can see that you and your croonies will dominate YOUR thread and continue the mindset you are set on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 And doubtless when you give us the proof, we will see the light. Any day now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Bipto- the nonhumansrights. org is an advocacy group forwarding the rights for any creature to be treated fairly. It is made up of doctors, lawyers and educators not merely adhoc group of people. You should learn a little more about people before you go off. I don't think I "went off." What I said was they didn't represent the consensus of science or really any other group. We can get into a lengthy conversation about the rights of animals if you like, but this isn't the thread for it. Suffice it to say, these are a group of people on the fringes. about your statement about observing, so your observations are what fleeting glimpes, some calls and footprints, an attempted shooting? Not very much to offer to base your opinion on as if you are the athority. We have at least six months of field notes detailing all sorts of behavior (including some sightings) by dozens of investigators. We may not be an authority, but we're not talking out of our orifice, either. Edited to add: Taking detailed field notes are what some people call "science." Keep that in mind when we get to the next point. As for trying use the forum for helping other in their field investigations you have offered opinions, no scientific back-up and not only that you what to kill the subject involved. Not very scientific if you ask me. I can't be certain what that first sentence is trying to say (you should slow down and proofread), but you see the irony of what I think you're saying, right? We have "no scientific back-up." And what does "science" consider "back-up?" A type specimen. Never mind the fact that we have an unidentified hair being evaluated as we speak at Oxford University. I guess that doesn't count as "scientific back-up." Those who have done work similar to ours can take from what I've shared here whatever they think significant. I'm honestly amazed at how so many on your side of the argument readily fall back to emotion and simplification. Since we ascribe to the established scientific method of proving a new species of animal, we're killers. Just in it for the bloodlust. I guess it's easier to argue with a caricature. As is I can see that you and your croonies will dominate YOUR thread and continue the mindset you are set on. Just because someone agrees with my point of view doesn't make them a crony. And my "mindset" is at least based on some facts and experience. Edited December 6, 2012 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Maybe this isn't the case with all scientists since they're just people, too, but science itself is best when it's wrong. The purpose of it isn't to have all the answers, but to find them. Hypotheses deserve to be proven right or wrong and it's not until you prove them right or wrong that you actually learn. This is touchy, if it's too wrong it can take you down the wrong road and set you back. Also subject to biased interpretations. If we collect data that suggests a different interpretation is in order, we will consider it. Well we've heard the chatter and it didn't change anything. Maybe DNA.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 This is touchy, if it's too wrong it can take you down the wrong road and set you back. Also subject to biased interpretations. If only we had a Vulcan on our team... Well we've heard the chatter and it didn't change anything. Maybe DNA.............. We apparently didn't all hear the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Bipto- the nonhumansrights. org is an advocacy group forwarding the rights for any creature to be treated fairly. It is made up of doctors, lawyers and educators not merely adhoc group of people. You should learn a little more about people before you go off. about your statement about observing, so your observations are what fleeting glimpes, some calls and footprints, an attempted shooting? Not very much to offer to base your opinion on as if you are the athority. Doubtless you not read or listened to this well thought out and established organization that have been around and been a public input to governmental panels for a number of years. As for trying use the forum for helping other in their field investigations you have offered opinions, no scientific back-up and not only that you what to kill the subject involved. Not very scientific if you ask me. As is I can see that you and your croonies will dominate YOUR thread and continue the mindset you are set on. I read their mission. I hate to break it to you but many of us like to hunt animals. That involves shooting and killing them. We don't feel that we need to give a deer a fair trial before he is sent to walk the Green Mile. Hunting is legal, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 When they do bring in a specimen, dead or alive, I feel certain we will know that BF is not a sub-human animal. (Did Smeja weigh in on that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 So if they end up being anything other than completely HSS, are they sub-human? I am curious though, with the forest people being characterized as having traits that in many cases make them much better than us regular humans, why haven't they done anything at all to address the unfolding genocide/ethnic cleansing currently happening in Area X ? At least that's what many are making it sound like anyway. Wouldn't they send someone to conduct peace talks, extend an olive branch, stop throwing rocks, or do just about anything to ensure no harm is done on either side? They could also maybe just leave. I just don't see much that is consistent with human behavior so far. You'd think once shots were fired, things would've changed. Humans usually see that as an act of war or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 At no point did any species of primate "reject" their natural development. Homo sapiens didn't make a strategic decision to develop as we have. Like we all sat around and voted or something. Individuals can make decisions like that, but not species. Species go where their abilities and evolution take them. And you can't be expelled from that natural development. If they were incompatible with us or some other early competitors and were driven away (which may be exactly what happened), wouldn't they just have developed into something more human-like somewhere else by themselves? Like Homo floresiensis? And wouldn't that ultimately be a dead-end (again, Homo floresiensis)? If there are examples of what you're describing somewhere in the natural world, then I'm willing to be educated on the matter, but I don't think there is. I think a lot of people want to make them more than they are. Like that old saying about the animal that runs like a horse and sounds like a horse and smells like a horse being a zebra. Wood apes act like apes. They're apes. At least, IMO. I don't argue that, but I'm not speaking simply from my own personal experiences. I'm working from the combined experiences of those in the TBRC who I firmly believe have been in close contact with these creatures for upwards of six months (and, of course, the vast witness data we're all familiar with). The TBRC has a lot of observational data, but not all there is to have. You're right, we've not been able to observe them so closely that we know for a fact they don't have a burial ritual or something, but "culture" is more than that. There are inevitably physical remnants of culture left behind. Where are those things? Why don't we find them? This isn't like the "why don't we find a body" argument. The detritus of culture would not decompose so quickly or be spread by scavengers. It should be there and it's not. No writing, no rock art, not even artful arrangement of environmental objects. The problem with your assertion, from my perspective, is it asks us to give them the benefit of the doubt against all observed behavior. That they're somehow a totally new and wholly unique kind of "human" that does none of the things other human-type species have done. I don't understand why they should be given that benefit, especially when doing so leads to a delay in their recognition and ultimate protection. Section emboldened by myself for emphasis. Would you consider the widely-reported phenomenon of stick structures to fall within the remit of 'artful arrangement of environmental objects'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Would you consider the widely-reported phenomenon of stick structures to fall within the remit of 'artful arrangement of environmental objects'? No, because every image of purported stick structures I've seen are natural formations. Some primates utilize tree breaks, etc., but they are not done so for creative, artistic reasons. They're functional. Wood apes might use sticks and branches to create a shelter, but again, that's not creative or artistic. Direction or territory markers and shelters don't represent human culture. You'd think once shots were fired, things would've changed. You'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Arizona- hunting animals ?I never said I had a problem hunting animals, IDO have a problem of shooting a closely related Hominin to us. If you had read past their mission statement you would of also of seen how(the process) of classification and or the relationship of judicating the level of rights for each individual species. Like it or not organizations like the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resourses Defence Council and other groups DO have a voice when the US F&G come to determine the validity of public input. Please do not confuse your(the publics') right to input by associateing the shooting of a dear and the publics right to recreational hunting with a possible very important issue of what could possibly be the course of action after verification of BF. Also in all fairness, I will not "put my two cents in" anymore in this perticular thread about kill- no-kill when addressing the TBRC and Bipto. Outside of the kill- no-kill issue I think that the TBRC has offered a lot of help and information to the members outside of that issue. Just saying I will leave it at a agree to dis-agree stance for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Duly noted. Would you consider taking your soapbox to another thread? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I second that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I third it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 To bad we can't vote people off the island.....well maybe on second thought that might not work out to well for me Do we have quorum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts