Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) So to answer the question, you would shoot one or have a guide blast one for science to study ol' BF if it is just a big monkey like animal. But if BF lives in small groups and chatters with others, it will be saved from the blast of an elephant gun and will remain a mystery for another 60 years. During this time only the lucky ones will know. Once BF is "discovered", then what? Will it be ok to allow zoos to capture them so Satruday crowds can walk past big glass windows to see BF smurk at them? Can we control the political process so BF must be studied in the wild. Maybe we should do this first, then discover BF at the end of a gun or encrusted on the grill of logging truck. Nope if it is found to be an indigineous tribe of some sort of human species (I'm not an anthropologist so I can't remember all the various types) then I would support a no kill. Alright, to avoid further confusion I will lay it out as clearly as I can: A) if it's just a critter in the woods I think that killing one for science is in everyones best interest, the world at large's increased knowledge, the scientific communities ability to apply the proper taxonomy, the possible ability to fill in some of the gaps in our own species evolutionary chain, as well as the species itself. More knowledge is never a bad thing (granted, the one individual who would disagree is the harvested specimen) B ) If it turns out to be a human (erectus,cro magnon, neanderthal...etc) or something similar (like the recently discovered tribes in south america) then you should follow through with study in a similar manner as has been done with tribes before (hopefully without the cholera part) In the long run, our opinions on this will prolly be moo (like a cows opinion it doesn't matter), IF video comes out that's high def, and confirms it's truly not a guy in a suit but a real live critter, Science is gonna do what it's gonna do. They are gonna take one and study it's corpse. I see nothing "wrong" with this. As i saw nothing wrong with Darwin taking Finch, Iguana and Turtle specimens when he went to the Galapogos. I hope that all the loose ends are tied up! btw, it's weird that you can't make a B ) without it appearing as Edited October 22, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) I'm not exactly clear on how knowing bigfoot/sasquatch existed would benefit the average person. All of us who frequent this forum are statistical anomalies, most of the population would never spend significant chunks of the time they have on this earth looking for or discussing bigfoot. The altruistic position of doing it for the good of Science is laughable. Science is a trendy, manipulated tool that at the end of the day has very little to do with ethics. Many societies already recognize/ believe in bigfoot. so what we are really discussing is Late 20th-early 21 century Western Civilization doesn't recognize/believe, and is killing one for them cool..................in a word, NO! trendy manipulated tool? based on what evidence? True the world of academia can be a bit of a protectionist, consensus good ole boys club. But they rarely laugh in the face of real hard evidence. The problem with Bigfoot is there is no REAL HARD EVIDENCE. Edited October 22, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I disagree completely. She (didn't know it was a lady person) took my "I want" and used it to attempt to dismiss my entire argument. I re-worded it so as to express the intent without any possession of the idea. I see this happening a lot on these forums. I am not sure what you are talking about with that last line, but I have an idea and your right. There is a similarity. Just not the way you are seeing it. As for the other, she pointed out what your personal intent was by bolding your own words. While you may share this view with others, I hardly think she was dismissing your argument. She seemed to be engaging it to me. Of course we have a few here claiming intimate knowledge and interaction with the creatures. I claim I'm nearing the finalization of a protection order against Jennifer Aniston because she won't leave me alone and stalks me nightly. One claim, without proof, is as likely as the other. Ah, Inc1's customary not-so-veiled swipe at Sasfooty's refusal to provide proof to her extraordinary personal encounters. One day you two are going to need to get in the octogon and fight this thing out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 i see a lot of semantical arguing is what i meant HG. Folks nitpicking words out of someones argument and making the debate about their wording instead of their concepts... I come from physics and such (not professionally but it's one of my interests and one of the "big idea" type of things I debate) those debates are all about ideas and concepts (and yes beliefs too) rarely does it devolve to finding the one word in an argument which you can use to nitpick a concept. I think most grownups understand a concept when it's expressed. To belittle one's idea merely with a basis of semantical and/or grammatical nitpicking is kinda...well it's not really furthuring the discussion is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I think to try and pull semantics into the equation just to suit your opinion is kinda...well, honestly, nitpicky. Well, honestly, that's not the first time I've been called nitpicky, & I don't mind at all. On one hand you have "only I get to know" and on the other hand you have "everyone gets to know" I prefer the latter personally. Science can't know it for you. Sounds like you prefer that an innocent being loses it's life so "you get to know" something that will not be special at all. And you have the nerve to call someone else selfish? If you want to know, maybe you should get out & get to know it for yourself, then nobody has to die for your satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Based on things like: I could (given enough money) hire a team of scientists next Monday to come up with biological weapons, prove or disprove man made climate alteration, describe all types of hither to unknown syndromes formerly described as vices or shortcomings, or tout all sorts of unverifiable non-repeatable theories as facts as long as they occurred a long time ago. Really?.................I wouldn't kill a possible relic man to further the cause of Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 That isn't what i said at all. If it comforts you to think me some evil man who wants to kill, that's your bidness. Like I said at the bottom, if it's an animal, it's no different than Darwin collecting specimens in the Galapagos. Science can't know it for you? Of course it can! If I never go to Africa and see driver ants , how do I know they exists and aren't a hoax? forget the video footage, it could be CGI!!!! I know it is so because it has been confirmed as an existent species. Unfortunately for Squatchy, I doubt it's going to be an easily collected species that can be brought back and kept docile while they run a series of tests. Regardless of either one of our opinions, if it's discovered it will be killed for study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Based on things like: I could (given enough money) hire a team of scientists next Monday to come up with biological weapons, prove or disprove man made climate alteration, describe all types of hither to unknown syndromes formerly described as vices or shortcomings, or tout all sorts of unverifiable non-repeatable theories as facts as long as they occurred a long time ago. Really?.................I wouldn't kill a possible relic man to further the cause of Science. well why don't you empty your vault and get Squatchy confirmed then and save us all the trouble of arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 What you call nitpicking I call uncovering someone's intent and/or motive. Like your use of the word "grownup" meant to devalue my statements as childish because you don't like them (isn't that the definition of belittling?). Sometimes the wording reveals the reason for the basis for someone's concepts. I don't know what you are used to arguing about and with who, but everything you say here is weighed and measured and most likley will be found wanting by someone. She got your concept. She doesn't agree with it. She pointed out why. What is there to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 well why don't you empty your vault and get Squatchy confirmed then and save us all the trouble of arguing? I'm not arguing, (not emptying my vault either), just explaining my reasons for not wanting to be the triggerman for Science Inc. Peter Byrne hunted down man killing tigers in India, and he never bagged a sasquatch. They don't seem to be easy to outsmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 That isn't what i said at all. If it comforts you to think me some evil man who wants to kill, that's your bidness. Yep, that's what you said. Paraphrasing here: "One needs to be killed so I can "know", because it isn't fair that others "know" something that I don't "know"." Science can't know it for you? Of course it can! Of course it can't!!! How can science let you know what it feels like to see a live, free one, peeping at you from behind a tree? Or hearing a big male roaring so loud that it vibrates your bones? Maybe science can say "Yes. They are real beings", but is it worth one's life for you to hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 What you call nitpicking I call uncovering someone's intent and/or motive. Like your use of the word "grownup" meant to devalue my statements as childish because you don't like them (isn't that the definition of belittling?). Sometimes the wording reveals the reason for the basis for someone's concepts. I don't know what you are used to arguing about and with who, but everything you say here is weighed and measured and most likley will be found wanting by someone. She got your concept. She doesn't agree with it. She pointed out why. What is there to discuss? I wasn't even referring to you( nor anybody in particular) when I said grownup.... It seems like folks are LOOKING for trouble that isn't there! I was referring GENERALLY, to the amount of nitpickyness I have seen on this forum in arguments that don't need to be that way. People should be able to debate the concepts of an idea without bringing up the wording. unless it's merely for clarification. That's what i was saying (I forget sometimes that tone of voice can be very hard to project via the forum. In that case I apologize) I don't even know HG why you would think i was referring to you! I've had no quarrels with you . (other than i thought you misconstrued the aformentioned statement) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Yep, that's what you said. Paraphrasing here: "One needs to be killed so I can "know", because it isn't fair that others "know" something that I don't "know"." Of course it can't!!! How can science let you know what it feels like to see a live, free one, peeping at you from behind a tree? Or hearing a big male roaring so loud that it vibrates your bones? Maybe science can say "Yes. They are real beings", but is it worth one's life for you to hear that? No it isn't, you can paraphrase all you want. But the dadburn quote is sitting right up there!!!! You may not think that science has a right to know about Bigfoot because you think they are some sort (paraphrasing here) mystical creatures on a different plane of existence.... I think you are wrong. They are probably, IF the even exist, just a critter in the woods. If we were all debating a unknown squirrel would you have this same opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Yep, that's what you said. Paraphrasing here: "One needs to be killed so I can "know", because it isn't fair that others "know" something that I don't "know"." Of course it can't!!! How can science let you know what it feels like to see a live, free one, peeping at you from behind a tree? Or hearing a big male roaring so loud that it vibrates your bones? Maybe science can say "Yes. They are real beings", but is it worth one's life for you to hear that? So you are claiming that we all should just form a line and go traipsing into the woods en masse so we can see for ourselves? I'm game! That seems much less harmful to the species as a whole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I wasn't even referring to you( nor anybody in particular) when I said grownup.... It seems like folks are LOOKING for trouble that isn't there! I was referring GENERALLY, to the amount of nitpickyness I have seen on this forum in arguments that don't need to be that way. People should be able to debate the concepts of an idea without bringing up the wording. unless it's merely for clarification. That's what i was saying (I forget sometimes that tone of voice can be very hard to project via the forum. In that case I apologize) I don't even know HG why you would think i was referring to you! I've had no quarrels with you . (other than i thought you misconstrued the aformentioned statement) Nah...I don't think you have any quarrels with me. And I don't agree with Sasfooty's stance. She knows that. I don't believe what she does about them. I wasn't kidding in my first post in this thread. I just think she had you pegged. It is what you want. You have said it in plenty of places; just because people agree with you doesn't make it an unselfish thought. Not so sure why it is so bothersome to you to point it out the way she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts