Well, now I'm sad.
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
Here in the states, we shot a gorilla once.
It, uh, . . . It didn’t go very well for a long time after that.
Personally I’d recommend some other approach. But that’s just me.
I think there's a slight difference in a captive gorilla and wild polar bear.
I mean (unrelated but still) I think a polar bear could 1v1 a gorilla. Meaning I think a polar bear is more dangerous. Especially a hungry one, that's able to just walk into a population center.
I too wish they could've saved the bear, but I don't think people are gonna complain about this as much as with Harambe (RIP)
Like even if anaesthesia was an option, they'd still have had to give it a ride back, or build it a home. And building zoos just isn't too popular nowadays imo.
Polar bears are three times the size and weight of a silverback. They could likely prevail in a 1v2 or 1v3. 1v4 would be a fair fight.
I mean, 1v1 is easy, 1v2 maybe even, but if there's a group of silverbacks, what with being somewhat smart and sturdy themselves, I think they could occasionally even get a win.
I've never seen a gorilla irl, but I've seen a taxidermied polar bear, and holy fuck those things are big. But then I think of just how versatile opposable thumbs are and of how insanely thick gorilla muscles are.
I'm marking this as a thing I'd like to know but probably never will, what with the moral implications of setting animals on each other in blood sports.
Gorillas don't have much for protection. The bear has 4" of fat "armor". The gorillas won't be able to bite or tear flesh.
My thinking is that if the bear is able to grab one of the gorillas, it will be disabled pretty much instantly. Unless the remaining gorilla(s) can press their momentary advantage while the bear is distracted, it's just going to rip them apart one by one.
1v4, they might have enough clout to keep the bear immobilized long enough to kill it.
Gorillas don't have much for protection. The bear has 4" of fat "armor". The gorillas won't be able to bite or tear flesh.
Oh yeah this is very true. But like several of them manhandling one, idk. Might be out of their capacity for coordination, though.
Yeah, with adequate coordination, the gorillas should prevail in a 1v3. But I think they tend to fight more like individuals than as a pack.
I'm just saying that the romans stopped putting bears into fights in the colloseum because it got boring - the bears qust wrecked everything else the romans could get their hands on.
Or so I've heard, I'm not a historian.
I believe this.
And they didn't even have polar bears afaik.
Romans should've put Silverfang in the ring.
I think a polar bear could 1v1 a gorilla. Meaning I think a polar bear is more dangerous.
An inuit friend once told me a polar bear could hunt, stalk, kill and eat you in about 8 minutes. I'm told the conversion from Minutes to Treadwells says it's longer, but I didn't check whether he was putting me on.
a hungry one, that’s able to just walk into a population center
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/churchill-canada-polar-bear-capital
It takes a lot of training and a little acceptance. Note, in the article above, the term 'medical bills', which in Canada doesn't mean "cash for care" so much as "rent and food during recovery", which aren't covered by insurance.
What does? Living in a polar bear habitat? Did you actually read the article yourself, or did you — I presume — just Google something you thought supported your view?
“If you were to build a town today, you would never put it here,”
Because it's s place where polar bears naturally live, see? Unlike in Iceland. They're not unheard of in Iceland, but it's not their habitat.
Did you note them size of those buses they do these bear tours in?
Did you note that these people don't live alongside bears as much as in a place where there are often bears. These people don't take risks either.
“When I was growing up, it was common for conservation officers to shoot 25 bears a season,” explains the mayor, Mike Spence, who is of Cree and Scottish descent.
Culvert traps, baited with seal scent, line the perimeter of the community; bears that are caught in them are taken to a holding facility, popularly known as the polar bear jail, where they are held for up to 30 days (without food, to enhance the deterrence factor of the experience), before being drugged and helicoptered to a spot safely away from town – or, if late enough in the season, on to the sea ice.
This is a single community, in a place where it's actually feasible to anaesthetise a bear, then keep then without food in a place meant to keep bears, then fly them to a place where the bears naturally live. And it happens so often that it's something that actually warrants constant attention, again unlike in Iceland.
Youre proposing the entire country starts putting down polar bear baits and traps, and then when they work once in a decade when a bear floats down on accident, they'll fly a bear from Iceland to the Arctic?
The irony of an American lecturing another country on finding an alternative to shooting.
I still think about that terrible day. once harambe passed, the world fell apart.
This is going to be increasing in the coming years. The ice is melting, and they will be forced onto land to look for food.
That's a lot of justification for killing something that can go fishing for food.
polar bears will absolutely hunt humans for food without a second thought. And you will not be able to outrun them or scare them away.
This one came quite close to homes, which is a reason for almost all towns with polar bears in the area to shoot them.
That this bear was the first in quite a while is a sad thing, but it's understandable that the town doesn't want a bear mauling people for a snack
If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lie down. If it's white, good night.
This reads like it's justified.
We destroy their habitats so they need to come to us to survive only to get killed by us.
Sounds like we are just bad guys.
Except that's not how Polar Bears prefer to hunt. They prefer to hunt by holes over pack ice, where they wait for animals like seals to surface for air. When there's no pack ice, which is what is happening thanks to global warming, they hunt for whatever they can on land. And if that land is inhabited by humans, that means humans.
I would say the potential to kill and eat humans, including infants, is excellent justification.
Does it suck that this is our fault to begin with? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that human lives should be put at risk as well.