4 ms·
Surely we can rule out bait if the cameraman is underwater with the Orca. At that point there isn't much stopping the Orca preying on the human especially if we
by s_dev 1y ago
Surely we can rule out bait if the cameraman is underwater with the Orca. At that point there isn't much stopping the Orca preying on the human especially if we're acknowledging their intelligence.
- techterrier 1y agoNever happened in the wild. The only recorded incidents of Orca attacking humans were in the aquariums.
- Y-bar 1y agoThey apparently hunt Moose on occasion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2024/10/22/4-decades-ago-we-learned-that-an-orcas-diet-may-include-moose-heres-why-and-where-this-predator-prey-pairing-exists/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2024/10/22/4-decad... (I know Forbes is not generally the best link, but the author of this article is an actual evolutionary biologist)
- s_dev 1y agoThe specific claim I'm disputing is that the Orca is using the 'gift' as 'bait' here. The implication that once the human bites or engages with the bait they are then preyed upon. The fact that moose are preyed upon by Orcas is irrelevant here.
- Y-bar 1y agoThe point I am trying to make is that Orcas can choose to prey on large land animals when they are in the water and that they are not using the gift as bait. Why do you think I am disagreeing with you?
- jibal 1y agoBecause he naturally assumed that you were attempting to say something relevant to his own claim rather than a complete non sequitur. Maybe in your head you intended to somehow make the point that they're not using the gift as bait but you didn't say anything of the sort so it wasn't your point as written. You also said nothing about humans and moose both being large land animals (and from the Orca's POV it's not likely that it considers humans to be land animals) and that therefore yada yada ... none of this was expressed. (I see quite a bit of this, where someone is called out and then they say "my point was X" where nothing they had said previously expressed X.)
- Y-bar 1y agoOnly on the internet will "here's a related example why you might be correct" result in strange discussions like these. Makes me sad.
- ugexe 1y agoOnly on the internet, where most of us (maybe even yourself) have the majority of our discussions?
- Y-bar 1y agoI've been on the internet since the early 90:ies, and this does happen semi-regularly, especially during the last decade. But I have never in my life experienced such situations stemming from an agreeing reflection/interjection during face-to-face communication. Sometimes it feels like people are (un)intentionally looking for reasons to disagree rather than anything else.
- jfyi 1y agoI agree with them, your original post lacked clarity. I propose that the reason these types of conversations are less likely in person is because there is typically no log of exactly what was said and people tend to get defensive and narratives change. This makes it a pointless endeavor. I would suggest, rather than wondering why people on the internet point things like this out, maybe wonder how many people in real life never bothered and just write you off.
- IAmBroom 1y agoNo, I've had those conversations IRL. Human communication is inherently fraught with misunderstandings.
- anonymars 1y agoConsider instead reflecting on why your point was misunderstood? My reading was, that post said "I don't think it makes sense that it's bait, because the humans are already in the water and they aren't eating them" Then you said "Sometimes they eat moose" You did not provide the reader with any language or reasoning connecting those ideas, so it comes off as a non sequitur. Compare instead with something like, "Moreover, we know this isn't just because humans are land mammals, because they have eaten moose"