Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Draignean]

The leopard bit his hand. So he shoved it down it's throat to the elbow. He's on Badassoftheweek.com somewhere.

I mean, that's kind of the standard trick to do if any dog-like bites your hand. Those teeth are curved to keep flesh from escaping, not from going deeper.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

Never turn your back on a big cat, that makes you prey. However facing down any big cat will typically cause it to back off, unless you are posing a threat to the cat or its cubs.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's not a xenomorph. It's a cheetah. So I stand by my original comment

"Shows little aggression" is different to "Once it's aggressive, it's not gonna do much"

The things would probably be more than happy to charge you down if they were inclined to, and would probably kill you if they caught you unarmed. As said, they take down.

Granted, in this instance the cheetahs were being pretty chill about it all, which is to say they didn't try to charge them and crush their windpipe. They approached at something of a trot and started making rather aggressive motions towards them, such as swiping and what looked like some growling. I can only assume they were more pissed off that a person was on their territory than thinking "Look, food!". Though had the people started legging it I'd have been unsurprised if they set off the cheetah's hunting reflex and wound up dead.

I don't think they are a bigger deal than a similarly sized dog. Which can also cause serious damage, granted. But the core of the statement stands: while overall it's a bad idea to harass any wild animal (or nonwild for that matter), facing a cheetah is nowhere near facing a tiger or a lion in the Darwin award scale.  If it was one on one it might be better to face a cheetah than an angry St Bernard.

[scourge728]

I'd just like to point this out, cheetahs get chased off by vultures sometimes

[ChairmanPoo]

I think you seriously overrate cheetahs  and underrate dogs. A priori I find a big, 80kg dog far scarier than a likely-less-than-50kg cheetah.  They are small and and weak as far as great felines are concerned. They are not fast killers either, it takes a while for them to choke large prey -and said large prey is overall smaller than an adult human.



As an addenum: here you have a story of a event in which the cheetah actually attacked.


https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/new-zealand-dad-fights-off-cheetah-to-save-son-in-kzn-20170317

a cheetah that appeared restless walked through the group and pushed her 14-year-old son Isaac to the ground.

The radio report quoted Mandy as saying her husband leaped into action, took hold of the cheetah and held it down.

The teen reportedly sustained injuries to his back and shoulder.

TL, DR: I contend that a cheetah would struggle to subdue a human being in general and would probably back down from facing a grown adult male human under most circumstances. Cheetahs rely on their speed to be able to subdue animals that are overall their size or smaller, they are not really built up to face animals their size or bigger. This is actually a problem in the wild because other animals routinedly bully them out of their kill (including wild dogs)

[ChairmanPoo]

You know, I kind of feel that we should give this guy and his family a free pass for the safari. Kindly point him out to the lion hunting grounds and the crocodrile pit.


Come on, if we don't let nature take it's course we can't keep complaining about dumb voters when election results come out. Darwin would have wanted it like this.

[pisskop]

Darwin was more concerned about what nuts a bird liked best . . .

[bloop_bleep]

You know, I kind of feel that we should give this guy and his family a free pass for the safari. Kindly point him out to the lion hunting grounds and the crocodrile pit.


Come on, if we don't let nature take it's course we can't keep complaining about dumb voters when election results come out. Darwin would have wanted it like this.

Hoping that this is facetious. Killing people and justifying it by "we're just helping evolution take its course" is completely immoral and unethical to even seriously suggest and I'm honestly very tired of hearing people (not necessarily on this forum) do so.

[hector13]

He’s not suggesting killing people, he’s suggesting allowing people who have no common sense to be in a situation in which the absence of a sudden development thereof will likely conclude poorly for said people.

[bloop_bleep]

He’s not suggesting killing people, he’s suggesting allowing people who have no common sense to be in a situation in which the absence of a sudden development thereof will likely conclude poorly for said people.

.... thereby killing them. If you consciously put someone in a situation where you expect them to die, that's called murder.

[Tack]

Yeah been hearing talk about darwainism and the more... social/intellectual Darwinism not actually being true survival of the fittest and evolutionary theory.

Good to hear there’s an alternative, but definitely up for an argument

[hector13]

He’s not suggesting killing people, he’s suggesting allowing people who have no common sense to be in a situation in which the absence of a sudden development thereof will likely conclude poorly for said people.

.... thereby killing them. If you consciously put someone in a situation where you expect them to die, that's called murder.

You're not putting them in that situation though. They would have a choice to use the free pass, and if they do, the choice to remain in the relative safety of their vehicle.

At what point do you lose responsibility for them being idiots?

[AzyWng]

I was initially gonna make some case going along the lines of “people have the freedom to do as they please with certain limitations. For instance, they have to face consequences for their actions” but I’m pretty sure that overlaps a lot with hector13’s post.

Instead, I’d just like to ask - does the hypothetical providing the free pass qualify as enabling dangerous behavior? Because if so, and if that person got hurt or killed because of the behavior we enabled, part of the blame/responsibility for what happened would fall on us, right?

[Egan_BW]

He’s not suggesting killing people, he’s suggesting allowing people who have no common sense to be in a situation in which the absence of a sudden development thereof will likely conclude poorly for said people.

.... thereby killing them. If you consciously put someone in a situation where you expect them to die, that's called murder.

You're not putting them in that situation though. They would have a choice to use the free pass, and if they do, the choice to remain in the relative safety of their vehicle.

At what point do you lose responsibility for them being idiots?

At the point where you're no longer planning their probable deaths.

[wierd]

Here's my .02$ worth, for all that it matters.

There is a ... trend?.. Notion?... Social More?...  related to "Helping the less fortunate" that involves saving the willfully stupid from themselves, and considering this heroic, morally justified, and desirable.

This is distinct and different from protecting the mentally infirm (such as people with learning disabilities, or people who have developed cognitive impairments through injury or disease) who have a genuine physiological reason for their impairment.  It is extended toward people who, simply for lack of situational awareness, lack of sense of danger (because they have never experienced dangerous situations, due to being bubble-wrapped in the protection of society, or a number of other factors), or lack of a sense of self-preservation, are a menace to others and themselves.

This .. notion.. (for lack of a better term) directly implies that failure of the more aware to cover for and protect the less aware is equivalent to willful endangerment, or gross negligence, through applying a false equivalence that the people being protected are on the same grounds as the infirm.  This leads to a pathological spiral, where more and more people need to  be covered and cared for, as the impetus to be self aware diminishes, through revocation of consequences for irresponsible behavior. (See also, "Affluenza")

The remedy is not more protection from society, or loving pats and a "There there, it will be ok little baby" type pablum.  The remedy is an abject lesson in real life, personal responsibility, and consequences.

Perhaps letting them go on the safari is a bit extreme as a first brush with such consequence-- give them the opportunity to wake up from their dreamy rose colored world, and be rational human beings first-- but I can definitely see how a "Yo, the animals are real and will kill you, stay in the car" should be sufficient warning if someone takes such a trip. If they STILL somehow fail to understand that they should not roll down windows, get out of the car, and try to put their heads in lions mouths for an "awesome selfie", they clearly deserve the gristly, bloody end the wildlife will give them.

Again, this is distinctly different from protecting the infirm; The caregivers of such people should not take such individuals on the safari to begin with.