Oh please, dont go there, I have explained to the reasoning why sea is not a natural habitat for humans yet it seams to fall on deaf ears.
Shark Attack - your thoughts?
- Thread starter LiE
- Start date
Oh please, dont go there, I have explained to the reasoning why sea is not a natural habitat for humans yet it seams to fall on deaf ears.
Using habitat I see, keep up.
You haven't explained anything and got so many things wrong. Even in that post by saying habitat.
Hows it wrong? habitat is a good term to use for the sea, here, I shall explain the definitional to you,
Which would be a place for fish etc to naturally live in and not humans.
Notice it says "particular species"
You have failed in this thread to explain to everyone else who says you are wrong to explain why the sea is a natrual palce for Humans, we are neither equipped for it or can stand long periods of exposure to it.
Last edited:
If you had kept up, I haven't called it a natural habitat, I haven't said its a natural habitat once. That's why you actually need to read what others write. I've actually said its not a natural habitat.
Anyway even that quoted deffi inion would fit humans
Influences = most certainly
Utilised = of course fishing, hunting, gathering.
Lived in = no, but never said we have either.
Anyway even that quoted deffi inion would fit humans
A surrounding area = yep most civilisation was built on coast lines or rivers.
Influences = most certainly
Utilised = of course fishing, hunting, gathering.
Lived in = no, but never said we have either.
Last edited:
Your argument would stand if we were arguing 100,000 years ago. The only time we need to go into the sea now is for recreation. We have the other means of doing this now, or making it safe.
If it was affecting someone that needed to survive by going into the sea, then they should kill it as it's a man eater.
Otherwise they should stay out of its natural habitat. It has done nothing wrong.
If it was affecting someone that needed to survive by going into the sea, then they should kill it as it's a man eater.
Otherwise they should stay out of its natural habitat. It has done nothing wrong.
You said it here - http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20380088&postcount=94
When you implied a hunting bird is like a human when it lives breeds on the land and hunts at sea.
When you implied a hunting bird is like a human when it lives breeds on the land and hunts at sea.
How does that change it, there's no need to eat meat these days. But I doubt you would suddenly call that unnatural. The fact it is unessecery doesn't change anything.
How does that imply it? It doesn't at all. That implies we can't live in the sea, same as birds. That water is not are natural habitat. But it is part of our natural territory. Which as I said in that post includes far more area, than ones habitat.
eh?
How does that suddenly make it an unnatural territory?
We don't need to eat meat? So in your mind eating meat is. Ow unnatural. That is what you implied in that post.
That because it is no longer needed I don't have a point, but I did have a point 100,000 years ago, when it was needed. It's still needed in many places around the world. Which stil use old fashioned system and live self sustained.
When you tried to compare a human hunting at sea with a crocodile/hunting bird/octopus.
I never compared it to a octopus. I said a octopus has huge learning and reasoning skills.
How does comparing us to other animals that use water as a hunting ground, but can not live or survive in water, imply habitat or perfect adaption.
So try again, also agin why keep banging on you've now had it clarified at least a hundred times. So what ever you though I I plied (which I didn't) what do you think now. Or are you just a ruling for the sake of it.
You have had it explained thoroughly in this thread, perhaps you should read through it and get some learning, it wasnt me comparing to other animlas, its was you trying to justify your comments by comparing the learned instincts of a bird with a human.
You still didn't explain who taught the first man to start a fire? as you said it had to be learned
The "eh" was referring to your incoprehensible post, which you later edited.
It is natural to go in the sea, but it is also natural for a shark to eat you.
I have no problem with people whose lives could be affected by a there being a shark threat, but no sympathy for those who go in there for fun and then whine about it if they get bitten.
Many surfers who have been bitten respect the shark and have no ill feelings about it. They know that is the sharks natural habital and take the risks.
You have had it explained thoroughly in this thread, perhaps you should read through it and get some learning, it wasnt me comparing to other animlas, its was you trying to justify your comments by comparing the learned instincts of a bird with a human.
You still didn't explain who taught the first man to start a fire? as you said it had to be learned
I didn't say it had to be learned. You now, people fiddle with things and it happens.
Not it has been explained and you still ignoring what I have said and making up your own commentary.
Totaly agree.
This.
I have zero feelings for these people too, you are not meant for the sea and humans dont have an special adaptations to cope with this environment and thus upon entering you open yourself up to a whole host of issues.
It wouldn't, I would still be pointless arguing with someone who makes up stuff and reads it, like if typed it.
.
It was a side note anyway. You said babies don't have natural responses I was merely pointing out that we have a natural swimming reflex. But anyway that's under the bridge and a tiny sideline.