Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
6:51 PM | 
Posted by
kender
Linked in the title is the story about the people attacked by the chimps in Caliente, Ca.
This is a sad story of a man that got badly mauled by chimps that broke out of their cage. However I am also taking excerpts from a story in the Mercury News. (free subscription to view story)
Bold is from me and are key phrases that need to be pointed out.
SAN FRANCISCO - A man who was severely mauled by two chimpanzees at an animal sanctuary last week was quickly overwhelmed when the apes attacked, his wife said Monday.
"One was at his head, one was at his foot. But all that time ... he was trying to reason with them," a sobbing LaDonna Davis told "Good Morning America." "I couldn't do anything."
Did you read that??? He was trying to "reason" with them!!! 'Wild animals are attacking me, perhaps if I try to talk them out of it and show them what a great person I am they will stop.'
Experts in primate behavior told The Associated Press last week that male chimpanzees in the wild are intensely territorial and often are violent, sometimes killing chimps from neighboring groups. A typical chimp weighs between 120 and 150 pounds and is much stronger than a human.
Well DUH!!!
In her interview on Good Morning America the victims wife, LaDonna Davis said "You can't discriminate. We don't know about [their] background or childhood," and also "Maybe once [the chimp] got into it, he found it gratifying," when she was theorizing that the male chimp wanted to show dominance.
I want to point out that phrase. "You can't discriminate. We don't know about [their] background or childhood,".
Did you get that? Maybe these chimps had "bad childhoods" and THAT is why they were attacking her husband.
See? Now it all makes sense. Maybe if a wild animal attacks you and he suffered from a "bad childhood" you can TALK him out of trying to kill you.
Here another line from the story on ABCs webite that I just howled about. (remember, this is a sad story)
"Gloria Allred, the couple's attorney, who also appeared on "Good Morning America," called the chimp attack "ironic" because of the Davises' love for the animals."
First off, do you think that Gloria Allred, (ambulance chaser supreme IMO) was this couples attorney BEFORE the attack? Yeah.
Also, is "ironic" a good word here? Is it "ironic" if you love good whiskey and it gives you scirhossis? Or is it perhaps a very good possibility?
Allred the ambulance chaser went on to say "No one loves chimpanzees more than St. James Davis and LaDonna Davis, they spent their whole life loving Moe the chimp, who has been like their child."
Well maybe Moe didn't tell his cellmates what nice people the Davis' are huh? Or maybe Moe talked alot of shit about the Davis' and how they put him in this place and rarely came to see him and this was simply a case of "Monkey Vengeance". Too bad the death penalty was already handed down. That would have made for a riviting trial huh?
Maybe even better than the Peterson Show.
One last quite before I shoot off on a rant.
"But LaDonna Davis said she will keep loving chimpanzees, saying it is unfair to say all chimps are dangerous because of the actions of these two."
Now is it me or is this the same kind of claptrap that I hear about radical islamic terrorists?
Is this not the same line of reasoning we hear from the left constantly about "reasoning" with the animals that want to destroy us and saw our heads off in the name of allah (piss be upon him)?
Is anyone else out there seeing a pattern? Does this not sound like the same kind of shiite that constantly spills from the mouths of the appeasers in europe and here?
As I said, this is a sad story, and I do feel sorry for the man, but I can't help but think that maybe he made a bad choice, maybe trying to "reason" with an animal that goes on instinct will earn you the asskicking, or the mauling, or even the beheading that you deserve.
This is a sad story of a man that got badly mauled by chimps that broke out of their cage. However I am also taking excerpts from a story in the Mercury News. (free subscription to view story)
Bold is from me and are key phrases that need to be pointed out.
SAN FRANCISCO - A man who was severely mauled by two chimpanzees at an animal sanctuary last week was quickly overwhelmed when the apes attacked, his wife said Monday.
"One was at his head, one was at his foot. But all that time ... he was trying to reason with them," a sobbing LaDonna Davis told "Good Morning America." "I couldn't do anything."
Did you read that??? He was trying to "reason" with them!!! 'Wild animals are attacking me, perhaps if I try to talk them out of it and show them what a great person I am they will stop.'
Experts in primate behavior told The Associated Press last week that male chimpanzees in the wild are intensely territorial and often are violent, sometimes killing chimps from neighboring groups. A typical chimp weighs between 120 and 150 pounds and is much stronger than a human.
Well DUH!!!
In her interview on Good Morning America the victims wife, LaDonna Davis said "You can't discriminate. We don't know about [their] background or childhood," and also "Maybe once [the chimp] got into it, he found it gratifying," when she was theorizing that the male chimp wanted to show dominance.
I want to point out that phrase. "You can't discriminate. We don't know about [their] background or childhood,".
Did you get that? Maybe these chimps had "bad childhoods" and THAT is why they were attacking her husband.
See? Now it all makes sense. Maybe if a wild animal attacks you and he suffered from a "bad childhood" you can TALK him out of trying to kill you.
Here another line from the story on ABCs webite that I just howled about. (remember, this is a sad story)
"Gloria Allred, the couple's attorney, who also appeared on "Good Morning America," called the chimp attack "ironic" because of the Davises' love for the animals."
First off, do you think that Gloria Allred, (ambulance chaser supreme IMO) was this couples attorney BEFORE the attack? Yeah.
Also, is "ironic" a good word here? Is it "ironic" if you love good whiskey and it gives you scirhossis? Or is it perhaps a very good possibility?
Allred the ambulance chaser went on to say "No one loves chimpanzees more than St. James Davis and LaDonna Davis, they spent their whole life loving Moe the chimp, who has been like their child."
Well maybe Moe didn't tell his cellmates what nice people the Davis' are huh? Or maybe Moe talked alot of shit about the Davis' and how they put him in this place and rarely came to see him and this was simply a case of "Monkey Vengeance". Too bad the death penalty was already handed down. That would have made for a riviting trial huh?
Maybe even better than the Peterson Show.
One last quite before I shoot off on a rant.
"But LaDonna Davis said she will keep loving chimpanzees, saying it is unfair to say all chimps are dangerous because of the actions of these two."
Now is it me or is this the same kind of claptrap that I hear about radical islamic terrorists?
Is this not the same line of reasoning we hear from the left constantly about "reasoning" with the animals that want to destroy us and saw our heads off in the name of allah (piss be upon him)?
Is anyone else out there seeing a pattern? Does this not sound like the same kind of shiite that constantly spills from the mouths of the appeasers in europe and here?
As I said, this is a sad story, and I do feel sorry for the man, but I can't help but think that maybe he made a bad choice, maybe trying to "reason" with an animal that goes on instinct will earn you the asskicking, or the mauling, or even the beheading that you deserve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Kender, you really shouldn't write about pissing on someone else's god. It's just rude. Seriously.
I can't really say I take offense to your equating Muslims with chimpanzees, although I do take offense to it, because I expect that from you. However, I think that this is not a productive line of reasoning. Muslims are fellow human beings, are they not? As are all terrorists.
What the left wants is for terrorists to be hunted down and punished. What the the left does not want is for non-terrorists to be unnecessarily killed in the process. We also do not want the Constitution, or basic human decency, violated in the process.
I would say that one of the basic differences between the right and the left in terms of fighting terrorism is that you think that this fight justifies absolutely anything. We do not.
ummm..i think you are trying to reason with an enraged chimp
good blog though
I got somethin else over at my site that you will want to see. I'm sorry to plug myself here so much, but I know you share common goals.
And thank you for helping to expose the ACLU. You will want to see this protest organizing. And again, the invitation to post at my blog is still out there, just let me know.
http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com
You're missing another key part of this story -- did you notice what happened to the murderous wild animals at the end? No, this article really doesn't let you know. They were shot and killed by a bystander, a private citizen with a gun! Oh the horrors! See what evil things happen when people are "permitted" to have guns? They kill innocent, murderous feral animals!
On the one hand, people are stupid. If these people were such animal lovers, shouldn't they have had a better idea what to do in case of an attack? Anyway, stupid people.
On the other hand, your analogy is stupid. What is your point? That we should kill all chimpanzee's because two of them attacked someone? Should we indiscriminately kill (torture) them 'in case' they happen to be chimpanzee's that will attack people? Some (the majority of) chimpanzee's in captivity go their entire lives without attacking anyone.
No one wants innocent people killed, including us right wing folk. In fact, that is why we chose to wage war...what is worse? MILLIONS of innocent people being killed by a nuclear attack, or, sadly and with tears, thousands in a war? I don't think there is a right answer to this for liberals. They would rather wait for such a nuke attack I think. Not me.
Yes, well, Raven, we certainly have an excellent track record against nuclear weapons the last few years. We have managed to attack the one country out of the so-called "Axis of Evil" that DIDN'T have any sort of nuclear weapons program. I feel much safer from nuclear attack now...
Oh Ok...so if Bush announces tomorrow that we are invading Iran, what say you? Will you complain and protest? I'm not being snarky, I just want to know what you would think.
C'mon - who's really worried about nuclear missles? Can't we just spent several billion more dollars on our missle defense system? Its gonna work flawlessly!!!
Seriously though. What (or rather, whom) would we attack Iran with? Unless Bush wants to prove himself the liar that many of us believe him to be and reinstate a draft, we don't exactly have the manpower to take on Iran.
If we could prove that we actually have good reason to invade Iran (I would consider a good reason that if we could prove, for instance, that Osama bin Laden was under their protection and they refused to give him up), I would not argue against it. I would probably argue about the wisdom of such an action NOW, but again, if we had good cause...
We had good reason to attack Afghanistan. We did not have good reason to attack Iraq.
You just proved a point I am trying make. No matter what threat faces the US, you do not appear to support any defense of the country. Why must we wait? You said yourself in the previous comment:
"We have managed to attack the one country out of the so-called 'Axis of Evil'that DIDN'T have any sort of nuclear weapons program. I feel much safer from nuclear attack now..."
Iran is part of Axis of Evil... It does have weapons. I'm confused...as to what you stand for here.
(I'm confused a lot lately so don't take it personally)
Moonbats will do that to you Raven.
I can totally empathize with the confused thing. I've shown up for meetings twice in the last week at the completely wrong time. Maybe its the time of year or something?
I thought I had explained the reasons why we should wait...we are pretty well extended militarily right now. If we were to open up another front, we would be very overextended. What would then happen if someone decided to invade us or one of our allies? For instance, if we were to attack Iran (or Syria) right now, what would we then do if North Korea decided to invade South Korea or attack Japan? This is why I said I would question the wisdom of such an action NOW.
Also, I never said we should not defend ourselves. I have always agreed with the actions that were taken in Afghanistan. Funny thing is - what were we defending ourselves from by attacking Iraq? Even if you buy the idea that there was a much deeper and subtler strategy to conforming the Middle East to westernized standards by creating a democracy in Iraq, there was no IMMEDIATE threat from Iraq. Nothing that warranted the kind of rush job that we did over there.
The DOD is moving troop deployments all over the world to prepare for such things as you mentioned. Can't happen soon enough that we get out of Europe.
Anyway,why do you call The Axis evil if you don't believe we should invade them? Play the wait and see game? That game was played with Iraq, and look where it got us. War. We got trashed because we played the sanctions game (Evil Americans killed 500,000 Iraqi kids you know...BS)
We got trashe when we tried to hold Saddam accountable.
No more games. These people need to know-the US isn't the big wimp we were in the 90's. And no, I don't fall for that "USA is A World BULLY" BS either. Either live within human boundaries of dignity and hold value for human life, or be warned...no more games.
Actually, I think the "Axis of Evil" comment was one of the most politically unsavy (not to mention stupid) things I've ever heard. I've thought that since the very first time I heard heard Bush say it. This is why I referred to it as the 'so-called "Axis of Evil"'.
K1....that last moonbat coment in this thread wasn't aimed at you...it was alluding to some of the posters and Andrightlyso!.
Post a Comment