3 ms·

I agree. The "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop, and the elephants may have shown up at that particular refuge purely out of a herd instinct.

by tsotha 11y ago

I agree. The "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop, and the elephants may have shown up at that particular refuge purely out of a herd instinct. Or it could have been just dumb luck. I'm very skeptical they knew they would be helped because they mated with elephants that grew up in that place.

vegabook 11y ago
> "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop Do you contend that poachers are not the major threat to elephants? You would have to in order to reinforce your case that the article's citing them increases the chance that the story is fabricated. Otherwise I would have to conclude that fabrication is at work in your argument.
- tsotha 11y ago
  The fact that poachers exist doesn't mean these particular elephants were attacked by poachers. If the writer assumed poachers based purely the poison arrows they yes, the story is, ipso facto, fabricated. Whether or not poachers are "the" major threat to elephants is irrelevant. Elephants are pest animals to the people who actually have to deal with them. The fact that the attackers used poison arrows instead of AK-47s is a pretty good indication these are not professional poachers.
  - vegabook 11y ago
    if probability x >> (1 - x) then citing 1-x does not reinforce your case. More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true, but that there is a large body of evidence that elephants are intelligent animals. It is extremely unlikely that all of these stories are untrue. Thus the underlying thrust of your arguments (elephants are probably stupid) is disingenuous.
    - pygy_ 11y ago
      @tsotha made two unrelated points initially: - given the method used, it might have been farmers rather than poachers, and I agree with him, I though of it as well. - elephants are stupid, which I disagree with. This subthread was dedicated to the first one until you brought up the second.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        Eh? I never said elephants are stupid. The elephants in question had never been to the refuge before - my problem was the writer assumes because they mated with elephants who had they knew where to go. I find that a really difficult claim to accept. Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.
        pygy_ 11y ago
        Actually, that's not what I wanted to write, I exagerated your point. You don't think they're smart enough to communicate that kind of information and act on it. I know little about elephants, but from what I know of them, it sounds possible that it actually occured.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true... This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
      - vegabook 11y ago
        But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake. If you were right, then the author of the story was expressing a bias, an opinion, an attempt to influence, a "message". Gees - you're all over the place on logic.
        tsotha 11y ago

by tsotha 11y ago

vegabook 11y ago

> "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop Do you contend that poachers are not the major threat to elephants? You would have to in order to reinforce your case that the article's citing them increases the chance that the story is fabricated. Otherwise I would have to conclude that fabrication is at work in your argument.

tsotha 11y ago
The fact that poachers exist doesn't mean these particular elephants were attacked by poachers. If the writer assumed poachers based purely the poison arrows they yes, the story is, ipso facto, fabricated. Whether or not poachers are "the" major threat to elephants is irrelevant. Elephants are pest animals to the people who actually have to deal with them. The fact that the attackers used poison arrows instead of AK-47s is a pretty good indication these are not professional poachers.
- vegabook 11y ago
  if probability x >> (1 - x) then citing 1-x does not reinforce your case. More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true, but that there is a large body of evidence that elephants are intelligent animals. It is extremely unlikely that all of these stories are untrue. Thus the underlying thrust of your arguments (elephants are probably stupid) is disingenuous.
  - pygy_ 11y ago
    @tsotha made two unrelated points initially: - given the method used, it might have been farmers rather than poachers, and I agree with him, I though of it as well. - elephants are stupid, which I disagree with. This subthread was dedicated to the first one until you brought up the second.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      Eh? I never said elephants are stupid. The elephants in question had never been to the refuge before - my problem was the writer assumes because they mated with elephants who had they knew where to go. I find that a really difficult claim to accept. Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.
      - pygy_ 11y ago
        Actually, that's not what I wanted to write, I exagerated your point. You don't think they're smart enough to communicate that kind of information and act on it. I know little about elephants, but from what I know of them, it sounds possible that it actually occured.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true... This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
    - vegabook 11y ago
      But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake. If you were right, then the author of the story was expressing a bias, an opinion, an attempt to influence, a "message". Gees - you're all over the place on logic.
      - tsotha 11y ago