Re: Giant Squid caught on film

[Guest guest]

Inger,

This is another case of scientists being pig-headed. There was plenty of evidence about these giant squid but much of it was not believed.

Some years ago I was reading a book about the merchant marine during WW2. The book included many account of survivors of torpedoed ships being attacked by giant squid. One account started with a number of men on a raft. This long tentacle came out of the water, grabbed a man and pulled him under the water before they could react. A few minutes later, another tentacle came up and grabbed a second man and got him under too. Soon after, a third tentacle came up and grabbed another man, but they were ready. The men and the squid had a tug of war over the third man. ONe of the men cut the tentacle and it let go. The squid didn't come back after that. Lots of stories like that.

One the subject, a British destroyed recorded in its logs a strange encounter. The sonar detected a large object in the water, so they attacked it thinking it might be a U-boat. However, it turned in unusual ways, meaning in towards the ship instead of away from it. After several depth charge runs the encounter happened. To the side of the ship, this head on a long neck came out of the water very close to the ship and looked at them. The crew was so frightened they fired the machine gun at it and it went back underwater and dissappeared. I can't think of the name of the ship though.

[Guest guest]

Cool! The size of a bus, huh? :-o

Inger

Giant Squid caught on film

The giant squid has finally been caught on film, alive. Here is a link to the story, but I didn't see any link to video though.

http://news./news?tmpl=story & u=/afp/20050927/sc_afp/scienceanimalssquid_050927231557

[Guest guest]

It was a similar case with " rogue waves. " Sailors have spoken of

these for years but scientists never believed they existed until

satelites picked them up somehow.

Tom

Inger,

This is another case of scientists being pig-headed. There was plenty

of evidence about these giant squid but much of it was not believed.

Some years ago I was reading a book about the merchant marine during

WW2. The book included many account of survivors of torpedoed ships

being attacked by giant squid. One account started with a number of

men on a raft. This long tentacle came out of the water, grabbed a

man and pulled him under the water before they could react. A few

minutes later, another tentacle came up and grabbed a second man and

got him under too. Soon after, a third tentacle came up and grabbed

another man, but they were ready. The men and the squid had a tug of

war over the third man. ONe of the men cut the tentacle and it let

go. The squid didn't come back after that. Lots of stories like that.

One the subject, a British destroyed recorded in its logs a strange

encounter. The sonar detected a large object in the water, so they

attacked it thinking it might be a U-boat. However, it turned in

unusual ways, meaning in towards the ship instead of away from it.

After several depth charge runs the encounter happened. To the side

of the ship, this head on a long neck came out of the water very

close to the ship and looked at them. The crew was so frightened they

fired the machine gun at it and it went back underwater and

dissappeared. I can't think of the name of the ship though.

[Guest guest]

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> The giant squid has finally been caught on film, alive. Here is a link

> to the story, but I didn't see any link to video though.

>

>

>

>

http://news./news?tmpl=story & u=/afp/20050927/sc_afp/scienceanimalssquid\

_050927231557

>

<http://news./news?tmpl=story & u=/afp/20050927/sc_afp/scienceanimalssqui\

d_050927231557>

Another animal tortured in the name of science. Sickening.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

Watch how long it is before the fisheries industry in Asia declares it as a resource to be expoited until they become unknown once more.

Evanenvironmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

It was a similar case with "rogue waves." Sailors have spoken of these for years but scientists never believed they existed until satelites picked them up somehow.TomInger, This is another case of scientists being pig-headed. There was plenty of evidence about these giant squid but much of it was not believed. Some years ago I was reading a book about the merchant marine during WW2. The book included many account of survivors of torpedoed ships being attacked by giant squid. One account started with a number of men on a raft. This long tentacle came out of the water, grabbed a man and pulled him under the water before they could react. A few minutes later, another tentacle came up and grabbed a second man and got him under too. Soon after, a

third tentacle came up and grabbed another man, but they were ready. The men and the squid had a tug of war over the third man. ONe of the men cut the tentacle and it let go. The squid didn't come back after that. Lots of stories like that. One the subject, a British destroyed recorded in its logs a strange encounter. The sonar detected a large object in the water, so they attacked it thinking it might be a U-boat. However, it turned in unusual ways, meaning in towards the ship instead of away from it. After several depth charge runs the encounter happened. To the side of the ship, this head on a long neck came out of the water very close to the ship and looked at them. The crew was so frightened they fired the machine gun at it and it went back underwater and dissappeared. I can't think of the name of the ship though.

for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Guest guest]

Tom, Lwaxy,

The way things are right now, science does not accept the existence of a creature without a physical specimin. Sometimes a specimin can be capture alive or a natural corpse can be found. In these cases, DNA samples are often enough to prove a new species. The reason for this is that we know the basic internal layout of organs and such will follow a certain plain. However, there are other aspects of the creature that could prove interesting, like chemicals in the blood and so forth.

I don't think the taking of one or two animals for science is all that bad. It is bad luck for those few, but the information learned from them could help preserve the rest of them. By the same token, it could be that we find a compound in the squid or other creature that could help humans fight disease. With technology as it is, we could learn to synthesize that compound and make human life better.

Something else to bear in mind. The squid will most likely regrow that tentacle it lost. It is also likely the squid had been through worse. The squid is hunted by whales and it could well have been attacked itself by one.

[Guest guest]

Lwaxy,

I agree with you about this. If you read the article, it seems like

scientists undertook this exercise merely to prove it was alive.

They indicated that its quick movements underwater suggested in was

not a lethargic beast as they had first thought. Well, it was

struggling to unimpale itself and was probably in great pain.

I don't think curiosity -or any other reason- is good enough to

torture an animal in this manner.

Tom

Administrator

The giant squid has finally been caught on film, alive. Here is a link

to the story, but I didn't see any link to video though.

Another animal tortured in the name of science. Sickening.

Lwaxy

[Guest guest]

Though I know that many of the medical and scientific advances that

have benefitted me have occurred as the result of animal research, I

still cringe at the thought.

Creatures ought not to be conisdered commodities.

But then again, I just had a hamburger for lunch.

Tom

Tom, Lwaxy,

The way things are right now, science does not accept the existence

of a creature without a physical specimin. Sometimes a specimin can

be capture alive or a natural corpse can be found. In these cases,

DNA samples are often enough to prove a new species. The reason for

this is that we know the basic internal layout of organs and such

will follow a certain plain. However, there are other aspects of the

creature that could prove interesting, like chemicals in the blood

and so forth.

I don't think the taking of one or two animals for science is all

that bad. It is bad luck for those few, but the information learned

from them could help preserve the rest of them. By the same token,

it could be that we find a compound in the squid or other creature

that could help humans fight disease. With technology as it is, we

could learn to synthesize that compound and make human life better.

Something else to bear in mind. The squid will most likely regrow

that tentacle it lost. It is also likely the squid had been through

worse. The squid is hunted by whales and it could well have been

attacked itself by one.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Animal research has been very valuable, but it is not something I like to think about either. Mice and rats don't bother me so much, but dogs, cats and the primates is a different story.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Animal research has been very valuable, but it is not something I like to think about either. Mice and rats don't bother me so much, but dogs, cats and the primates is a different story.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Animal research has been very valuable, but it is not something I like to think about either. Mice and rats don't bother me so much, but dogs, cats and the primates is a different story.

[Guest guest]

Go here:

http://tinyurl.com/bcxnx

to see:

A photograph released by Dr Tsunemi Kubodera of Tokyo's National

Science Museum of an 8m (26ft) long giant squid taken as it attacked

bait on a longline at 900m depth off Japan's Bonin islands.

Photograph: AP

I'll also upload a picture to the photos section.

Tom

Legend of the deep

Ian Sample

Wednesday September 28, 2005

The Guardian

Captured on film for the first time in the wild, a giant squid

attacks a baited long line off the coast of Japan. Previous

specimens have been found either washed ashore or entangled in

trawler nets, leaving scientists in the dark about their natural

habitats, movements and behaviour.

Tsunemi Kubodera, a zoologist at the National Science Museum in

Tokyo, located them by tracking sperm whales, regular hunters of

giant squid.

At each site he dropped a buoy with a 1km-long baited line, fitted

with a camera. This shot, taken at a depth of 900 metres, shows an

eight-metre long giant squid, according to Proceedings of the Royal

Society B today. The images suggest the creature is a more active

predator than previously thought.

[Guest guest]

> Watch how long it is before the fisheries industry in Asia declares

it as a resource to be expoited until they become unknown once more.

> Evan

Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress for

civilisation. Why do the media never think that PC to say? A

provocative British TV voice, son, has said it about great

white sharks, though. I think trying to conserve sharks and make their

image more cuddly, or Bengal or Siberian tigers or Australian

crocodiles, is calculated murder and in its superstition the modern

counterpart of human sacrifice. The most basic act of self-defence for

any intelligent species is to exterminate its own non-intelligent

predators ASAP. Humans' completely irrational reluctance to favour

this is cause for despair that we (they?) have still not completed

their emeregcne asan intelligent species.

[Guest guest]

Ermm...

>

>

> Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress for

> civilisation. Why do the media never think that PC to say?

Because it's utterly dumb, maybe?

> I think trying to conserve sharks and make their

> image more cuddly, or Bengal or Siberian tigers or Australian

> crocodiles, is calculated murder and in its superstition the modern

> counterpart of human sacrifice.

Oh, it is? What a nonsense! Humans are the ones dangerous to THEM. We

are the idiots moving into their territory and push them out and then

wonder when they remain and defend it.

> The most basic act of self-defence for

> any intelligent species is to exterminate its own non-intelligent

> predators ASAP.

Humans don't have predators. They ARE the predators. Most people

attacked by animals have behaved incredibly dumb, this especially goes

for shark attacks. If it'snot that, then they have infringed on the

animal's living environment. That's the simple truth of it.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/28/2005 6:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress forcivilisation. Why do the media never think that PC to say? Aprovocative British TV voice, son, has said it about greatwhite sharks, though. I think trying to conserve sharks and make theirimage more cuddly, or Bengal or Siberian tigers or Australiancrocodiles, is calculated murder and in its superstition the moderncounterpart of human sacrifice. The most basic act of self-defence forany intelligent species is to exterminate its own non-intelligentpredators ASAP. Humans' completely irrational reluctance to favourthis is cause for despair that we (they?) have still not completedtheir emeregcne asan intelligent species.

Squid and great whites and other sharks aren't predators of humans. They live in the water and we live on land. Even with the millions of humans that swim in the oceans every year, only a few are killed by sharks.

On the other hand, there are predators on land that cause problems. People in some countries live alongside lions and tigers and some people are killed. Even so, those animals haven't been killed off yet. What is endangering those animals isn't that they kill people, but because some people think their meat and other bits give the consumer virility and sexual prowess, also the greed of the people who actually hunt those animals. (Though I can see how tiger meat at over $700 per pound and probably 200 pounds of it per tiger would be a major attractor to poor folks with gun in those areas.)

Here in the states there are few predators left. There are mountain lions in a few places, but they weren't a danger until people started crowding up into the hills with them. Bears are sometimes a problem but again mostly because people get in their way.

Now, if there was some kind of critter out there that was both common and really dangerous to humans there would be a press to kill them off. Imagine this. Right now, people even in the big cities aren't too upset with all the rats living alongside them. Now, imagine that somehow rats, or a portion of them, mutated into something else. That something else would include greater cunning, group behavior, and a taste for fresh meat. If creature like that came to be and were attacking people in the streets or in their homes, you can bet that there would be a major push to wipe them out ASAP.

[Guest guest]

> Humans don't have predators. They ARE the predators. Most people

> attacked by animals have behaved incredibly dumb, this especially goes

> for shark attacks. If it'snot that, then they have infringed on the

> animal's living environment.

Always wifully? Never inadvertently? Early human populations were

never forced by demographic pressures to widen their environmental

range? and who would like to be personally in danger at sea? There

should deliberately be no-go areas of our planet where it's unsafe for

biologists and environmentalists and geologists to go and learn

whatever there is to learn, and perhaps discover medicines from the

plant life there?

[Guest guest]

Scientists aren't usually dumb enough to disturb animals. Most accidents

either happen in populated areas where animals used to be (Florida for

example) or with idiot campers/swimmers who ignore all caution and

safety measures.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

I agree about the pigheadedness! I saw a film of one that was found dead in a fishnet. If they find a dead one, you'd think it not unreasonable for them to perhaps consider there may be live ones too, huh?

Inger

Re: Re: Giant Squid caught on film

Inger,

This is another case of scientists being pig-headed. There was plenty of evidence about these giant squid but much of it was not believed.

Some years ago I was reading a book about the merchant marine during WW2. The book included many account of survivors of torpedoed ships being attacked by giant squid. One account started with a number of men on a raft. This long tentacle came out of the water, grabbed a man and pulled him under the water before they could react. A few minutes later, another tentacle came up and grabbed a second man and got him under too. Soon after, a third tentacle came up and grabbed another man, but they were ready. The men and the squid had a tug of war over the third man. ONe of the men cut the tentacle and it let go. The squid didn't come back after that. Lots of stories like that.

One the subject, a British destroyed recorded in its logs a strange encounter. The sonar detected a large object in the water, so they attacked it thinking it might be a U-boat. However, it turned in unusual ways, meaning in towards the ship instead of away from it. After several depth charge runs the encounter happened. To the side of the ship, this head on a long neck came out of the water very close to the ship and looked at them. The crew was so frightened they fired the machine gun at it and it went back underwater and dissappeared. I can't think of the name of the ship though.

[Guest guest]

I saw a documentary about a killer tiger or wolf (forget which) in India. It

went into villages and took small children. When they finally managed to

locate the culprit, they recognised it as a mother whose cubs had earlier

been stolen from her and killed by humans...

Tit for tat.

Inger

Re: Giant Squid caught on film

> Watch how long it is before the fisheries industry in Asia declares

it as a resource to be expoited until they become unknown once more.

> Evan

Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress for

civilisation. Why do the media never think that PC to say? A

provocative British TV voice, son, has said it about great

white sharks, though. I think trying to conserve sharks and make their

image more cuddly, or Bengal or Siberian tigers or Australian

crocodiles, is calculated murder and in its superstition the modern

counterpart of human sacrifice. The most basic act of self-defence for

any intelligent species is to exterminate its own non-intelligent

predators ASAP. Humans' completely irrational reluctance to favour

this is cause for despair that we (they?) have still not completed

their emeregcne asan intelligent species.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

> Squid and great whites and other sharks aren't predators of humans.

They

> live in the water and we live on land. Even with the millions of

humans that

> swim in the oceans every year, only a few are killed by sharks.

>

" Only a few " is more than zero. Who wants to be among the only a few?

Sharks are predators of whatever is there, they are quite willing to

give an animal a lethal bite just exploratively before deciding they

don't like the taste,

and humans are not wholly a land animal. We live on a plural number of

landmasses mutally isolated by sea, with social needs sometimes to

cross between them, and sometimes on small islands where subsistence

depends on sea communications.

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes,and if you are stuck living there without being responsible for

> the original history of its settlement?

Then you learn about those animals and how to act around them. Simple.

>

>

> Better safe than killed. Safest to wipe out the source of the danger.

Ah yeah, mass murder. How great. No, better not GOING there at all. You

do not need to swim in shark zones. You don't need to go where the bears

are. Animals have the same if not more rights to this world than we do.

Yeah, thoughts like " go kill go kill " which is basically what you are

saying show sooo much more civilization. Right.

>

> Tit for tat no matter. That's no help if you are one of the small

> children and it's not you who did the poaching. Personally inaccurate

> group-based tit for tat is not morally acceptable from terrorists, so

> neither from animals.

Morally? You expect animals to worry about OUR morals? Err.. yeah sure.

Aren't we the supposedly more evolved species? It is our job to care for

nature and it's creatures properly, especially seeing all the damage we

did with our stupid overpopulation.

>

>

>

> " Only a few " is more than zero. Who wants to be among the only a few?

> Sharks are predators of whatever is there, they are quite willing to

> give an animal a lethal bite just exploratively before deciding they

> don't like the taste,

Then those dumbasses just need to stay out of shark areas. Simple, no?

>

> and humans are not wholly a land animal. We live on a plural number of

> landmasses mutally isolated by sea, with social needs sometimes to

> cross between them, and sometimes on small islands where subsistence

> depends on sea communications.

....which are in no way in any danger.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

I watched a very interesting programme about animals attacking

humans - some humans survived others didn't - it was interesting

though :-)

There was one place where humans lived quite happily alongside

tigers/lions (can't remember exactly which) - they just didn't go

roaming around alone at night (the humans) - during the day the

tigers/lions mostly slept.

Another guy was attacked riding his push bike home (and survived) - I

couldn't help but think 'meals on wheels' :-) yeah sick I know.

The most stupid human was story of guy who went to safari park with

girlfriend in car and it was mating season for lion and this was

fairly obvious from lion's behaviour.

The lion obviously didn't want watching (can't say I blame it) so it

let out a major roar towards this guy as warning - stupid human

didn't take this warning. So then lion did mock run at the car as

warning - human still didn't get it - was busy trying to make porn

lion film with cam corder (please how stupid can you get?). Finally

lion had had enough and charged at car smacking into it - fortunately

for stupid human it's head would not fit through window.

Now take a comparisment - if this said human was trying to have sex

with girlfriend how would he like it if someone he did not know came

into his teritory with mate to try and film him? I think he might

behave in similar fashion to lion too - maybe he would not give as

much warning though?

>

> In a message dated 9/28/2005 6:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> megaknee@b... writes:

>

> Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress for

> civilisation. Why do the media never think that PC to say? A

> provocative British TV voice, son, has said it about

great

> white sharks, though. I think trying to conserve sharks and make

their

> image more cuddly, or Bengal or Siberian tigers or Australian

> crocodiles, is calculated murder and in its superstition the modern

> counterpart of human sacrifice. The most basic act of self-defence

for

> any intelligent species is to exterminate its own non-intelligent

> predators ASAP. Humans' completely irrational reluctance to favour

> this is cause for despair that we (they?) have still not completed

> their emeregcne asan intelligent species.

>

>

>

>

> Squid and great whites and other sharks aren't predators of humans.

They

> live in the water and we live on land. Even with the millions of

humans that

> swim in the oceans every year, only a few are killed by sharks.

>

> On the other hand, there are predators on land that cause problems.

People

> in some countries live alongside lions and tigers and some people

are killed.

> Even so, those animals haven't been killed off yet. What is

endangering those

> animals isn't that they kill people, but because some people think

their meat

> and other bits give the consumer virility and sexual prowess, also

the greed

> of the people who actually hunt those animals. (Though I can see

how tiger

> meat at over $700 per pound and probably 200 pounds of it per

tiger would be a

> major attractor to poor folks with gun in those areas.)

>

> Here in the states there are few predators left. There are mountain

lions in

> a few places, but they weren't a danger until people started

crowding up into

> the hills with them. Bears are sometimes a problem but again

mostly because

> people get in their way.

>

> Now, if there was some kind of critter out there that was both

common and

> really dangerous to humans there would be a press to kill them off.

Imagine

> this. Right now, people even in the big cities aren't too upset

with all the

> rats living alongside them. Now, imagine that somehow rats, or a

portion of

> them, mutated into something else. That something else would

include greater

> cunning, group behavior, and a taste for fresh meat. If creature

like that came

> to be and were attacking people in the streets or in their homes,

you can bet

> that there would be a major push to wipe them out ASAP.

>

>

[Guest guest]

" Sharks are predators of whatever is there, they are quite willing to

> give an animal a lethal bite just exploratively before deciding they

> don't like the taste, "

I've heard it said that sharks think that surfers on a board look

like a seal - but do we really know? Maybe shark does know difference

and has just developed a taste for surfers :-)

>

> > Squid and great whites and other sharks aren't predators of

humans.

> They

> > live in the water and we live on land. Even with the millions of

> humans that

> > swim in the oceans every year, only a few are killed by sharks.

> >

>

> " Only a few " is more than zero. Who wants to be among the only a

few?

> Sharks are predators of whatever is there, they are quite willing to

> give an animal a lethal bite just exploratively before deciding they

> don't like the taste,

>

> and humans are not wholly a land animal. We live on a plural number

of

> landmasses mutally isolated by sea, with social needs sometimes to

> cross between them, and sometimes on small islands where subsistence

> depends on sea communications.

[Guest guest]

Trying to get this into some perspective. Yes animals do and will

attack and kill - so do humans - maybe natures way of trying to get

some of our numbers down - there is a lot of us afterall (humans) and

if we're not killing animals (I am not referring to anyone

persoanally here - just human race) we are busy killing one another;

sometimes humans can be very stupid/thick.

As for cases of animals attacking killing etc - there are also

stories of animals raising human children as own - or at least been

protective of. I think that humans sometimes tend to forget - we are

also animals - and looking at our world - how evolved and civilised

are we really?

>

> >

> > Yes,and if you are stuck living there without being responsible

for

> > the original history of its settlement?

>

> Then you learn about those animals and how to act around them.

Simple.

>

> >

> >

> > Better safe than killed. Safest to wipe out the source of the

danger.

>

> Ah yeah, mass murder. How great. No, better not GOING there at all.

You

> do not need to swim in shark zones. You don't need to go where the

bears

> are. Animals have the same if not more rights to this world than we

do.

>

> Yeah, thoughts like " go kill go kill " which is basically what you

are

> saying show sooo much more civilization. Right.

>

> >

> > Tit for tat no matter. That's no help if you are one of the small

> > children and it's not you who did the poaching. Personally

inaccurate

> > group-based tit for tat is not morally acceptable from

terrorists, so

> > neither from animals.

>

> Morally? You expect animals to worry about OUR morals? Err.. yeah

sure.

> Aren't we the supposedly more evolved species? It is our job to

care for

> nature and it's creatures properly, especially seeing all the

damage we

> did with our stupid overpopulation.

>

> >

> >

> >

> > " Only a few " is more than zero. Who wants to be among the only a

few?

> > Sharks are predators of whatever is there, they are quite willing

to

> > give an animal a lethal bite just exploratively before deciding

they

> > don't like the taste,

>

> Then those dumbasses just need to stay out of shark areas. Simple,

no?

>

> >

> > and humans are not wholly a land animal. We live on a plural

number of

> > landmasses mutally isolated by sea, with social needs sometimes to

> > cross between them, and sometimes on small islands where

subsistence

> > depends on sea communications.

>

> ...which are in no way in any danger.

>

> Lwaxy

>

> --

>

> " From childhood's hour I have not been

> As others were; I have not seen

> As others saw; I could not bring

> My passions from a common spring.

> From the same source I have not taken

> My sorrow; I could not awaken

> My heart to joy at the same tone;

> And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/squid.htm For sombre education, not

enjoyment. A good link on modern experiences of kraken attacks - they

can't grip ships effectively, or metal ships at all - and horror

between squid and whales. It also suggests there is only one WW2

story, and I've done a thorough 12-page google to confirm that. Though

there are mentions of " reports " existing, they are never actually

given. Needed to make sure of that,to stop the generationally hateful

old being given something more to brag about. WW2 accounts get so much

sympathetic attention that items' absence from them can't be explained

by media cover-ups, and if squid/krakens featured in them at all

recurrently there would be details of it. Evidently they don't target

commotions at surface level. Ship attack attempts are directed at

intact ships they think are small whales.

> the original history of its settlement?

>

> Then you learn about those animals and how to act around them. Simple.

Not simple at all. It means some deaths while the learning process is

going on.

> > Better safe than killed. Safest to wipe out the source of the danger.

>

> Ah yeah, mass murder.

Self defence isn't murder. While self-defence doesn't justify

preemptive massacres of human groups, an intelligent creature where

each knows what they are doing and have personal moral choice,

carnivorous animals don't have moral knowledge or intelligent choice

they only have hunting instincts to follow mechanically.

How great. No, better not GOING there at all. You

> do not need to swim in shark zones. You don't need to go where the

bears

> are. Animals have the same if not more rights to this world than we do.

>

> Yeah, thoughts like " go kill go kill " which is basically what you are

> saying show sooo much more civilization. Right.

>

> >

> > Tit for tat no matter. That's no help if you are one of the small

> > children and it's not you who did the poaching. Personally inaccurate

> > group-based tit for tat is not morally acceptable from terrorists, so

> > neither from animals.

>

> Morally? You expect animals to worry about OUR morals?

I expect our morals to include keeping children safe.

> It is our job to care for

> nature and it's creatures properly,

Nature is full of horrible violence. Apart from a few symbiotic

partnerships every species is out for itself at every other species'

expense. We can only do better towards the remainder of nature other

than the species who would direct violence at us.

> > depends on sea communications.

>

> ...which are in no way in any danger.

They are when there's a sinking.