Wow big leaps in the article, big assumptions. With little backing for the assumptions.
Excuse the pun, but I call "Bull"
Excuse the pun, but I call "Bull"
I'm very skeptical they knew they would be helped because they mated with elephants that grew up in that place.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.
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.
This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
Not so much fake as embellished.
>Gees - you're all over the place on logic.
I laughed when I read that.