To settle an arguement...

[GSLeloo]

Ok somehow I got into this arguement with someone and we're both saying that we're right and the other is wrong.

The question is, could a human without any tools, without any traps or weapons, just using their own body and nothing else, capture a deer.

I said the deer would win because first of all it's faster, it'd smell you, it's more agile... He said he'd tire the deer out or lay by the water and wait for it to come to drink.

Anyone have an opinion?

[Artha]

You're wrong.

[Sean]

Whats the point to this question. What human would try and capture a deer without any tools? Isn't that part of what makes us human our ability to adapt and use our intellect to our advantage?

[Mistomeer]

It's been done. Humans have caught deer with their bare hands.

[GSLeloo]

The point was comparing humans to animals. Basically he was like humans are superior. And I was like, well a lot of animals have a better sense of smell and hearing and then it somehow broke to this.

[The Korean]

depends on the person. if the person had the stamina and endurance, he could in fact tire the deer out.

[GSLeloo]

Ok but I mean now (cause it got personal) a human who has lived all his life in a city-ish place, never been in the wilds and gone hunting, works in an office, isn't involved in sports... could this person do it?

[Mistomeer]

Yes, they COULD do it, but why?

[Sean]

But if your comparing humans to animals shouldn't the human be allowed to compare his ability to think and create... not to mention his working thumbs?

Even when comparing humans to humans ... someone might be faster than me or more agile does that make them more superior?

[The Korean]

humans are superior. other animals may have better senses than us, but what does that mean? nothing. when an animal can think like us, have the same mental capacity as humans, has a civilization, then you can talk.

[GSLeloo]

I was trying to simply say a human in its natural state, just the human itself not whatever technology they can create. I was going more for that type of situation.

[The Korean]

so you're putting all these limitations on humans, but none on the deer?

[Sean]

Yea, but hunting tools aren't sophisticated technology. If your hungry and theres a bird flying around isn't it somewhat of an instinct to pick up a rock and throw it at the bird. Thought capacity is a tool and it comes natural to most humans I'd say.

Pitting humans against deers and then throwing out a bunch of what if situations doesn't really prove any type of superiority. If a human is blindfolded and has 1 arm and a gimpy leg can he take the deer? Maybe? Who cares? Whats the point?

[GSLeloo]

What limitation does the deer have? It's a deer in it's natural state, it doesn't use tools or anything to accomplish what it does.

[Wezas]

No tools, but can my human brain tell me that I might be able to dig a hole and cover it with light brush?

[Sean]

Being naked in the woods with no tools or ability to use any objects in their envirorment isn't the natural surroundings for a human. Your already handicapping people.

[The Korean]

hell, give it a gimp leg or something, if you're going to limit the human. why let the deer be at full capacity, when you're going to severly hinder a human? that's what separates us from animals....man has the ability to think around situations, not off animal instinct.

[GSLeloo]

I'm trying to say a humans physical ability versus a deers. Could a human outrun a deer? Could they out manuever it? That's what I'm trying to ask. Could a human keep chasing the deer and tire it out before they tire themselves out.

[The Korean]

if you were having an arguement with someone, and then came to here to see if you could get some backup and win it, you should keep your arguements between the two of you. In the end, it's between the two of you anyway. It's your arguement, not ours, your opinions on it. No one's going to be right, and there is going to be no winner.

[The Korean]

of course a deer can run faster than a human. that's plainly obvious.

[Sean]

Probably not. But so what? If thats your arguement for a deer or other animals being "superior" to humans it's a pretty week arguement. I somewhat agree with the Korean. It looks like you just want someone to back up your stance that the deer is superior, especially since you keep changing the scenario to better fit your case ie: no tools, forested enviornment, human not being able to act in its full capacity, etc.. If thats the point of this thread then heh I dunno what to tell you.

[Xcalibur]

max speed a human can run is what, 36km/h?

max weigh a fit human can be is what, 250 pounds?

[Artha]

Human puts acorns under tree branch.
Human climbs tree, waits for deer.
Deer comes, begins eating acorns.
Human drops on deer, snaps deer's neck.

A winner is Human.

[GSLeloo]

No it wasn't for backup. I asked someone else and they thought the deer. He asked someone else and they thought a human. It was simply what does everyone else think.

I honestly believe the deer would win. The person doesn't even read PC so it's not like this would accomplish anything, I just wanted to know if I was wrong or not.

[GSLeloo]

And right now our results are the same, split 50/50

[The Korean]

since when did opinions become right or wrong? last i checked, only fact could do that.

[GSLeloo]

Well fine then in your honest opinion do you believe humans are superior to every animal? Superior as in... the best hearing, the best vision, the most agile, the best sense of smell...

[AnticorRifling]

It's called a trap. You can build several killing traps without aid of tools, sure tools make it easier and faster to make but you don't NEED them. I can think of several ways to kill a deer without tools, most involve directing the deer into a trap, pit, cliff, spikes, etc. Deer act on instinct which is good but general doesn't match up to imagination.

[Xcalibur]

pure raw speed, power, strength, stamina and you remove the intelligence of the human to a "animal" one:

Deer, so would also almost all "strong" animals.

"Human is the weakest form of tree in all the big forest of life, but he is a thinking tree."

[Edaarin]

There are tribes in Sub-Saharan Africa that hunt deer by chasing them until they collapse from fatigue. Can't remember which country, but I read it while doing a sociology project awhile back.

EDIT: While I agree with The Korean that opinions generally can't be right or wrong, if your friend is a guy, then he is right and you're wrong.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Edaarin]

SECOND EDIT: If your friend is a girl, you're both wrong and need to stop arguing about pointless scenarios and sweep the floor or something.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Edaarin]

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Well fine then in your honest opinion do you believe humans are superior to every animal? Superior as in... the best hearing, the best vision, the most agile, the best sense of smell...

Best vision we have binos and telescopes.

Best hearing we have mikes and dishes.

Most agile we have cars, anything with the wheel, etc.

Best sense of smell we have devices that pick scents up far better than a bloodhound or a shark smelling blood in water.

We, much like some animals, create things to complete tasks. Thus making ourselves superior.

Sure a tiger or bear is fierce but put them on the business end of a gun and they are just rugs.

[The Korean]

superior in senses and physical ability, no. superior in mental abilities, yes, which makes us superior overall. physical prowress(sp?) isn't everything. a good mind can get around any physical limitations.

[GSLeloo]

You know, the whole reason this entire topic came up was because he was trying to say an animal couldnt love.

[Mistomeer]

"The word ghillie is an old English term for a special kind of game warden. Ghillies were tasked with protecting the game on the king’s lands. From time to time, the ghillies would stalk the game by hiding in the grass and lying perfectly still. They would wait for unsuspecting deer to amble by and then leap out and grab it with their bare hands. Ghillies would then haul their prize back to the king so he could shoot it in the castle courtyard in a 'mock hunt.'"

[Bobmuhthol]

What Anticor said. Animals have these senses because they do not live in a civilized society. They need to adapt to survive, and adapting means getting good at killing and sensing enemies. We don't have that problem, so we don't have the best senses in the world, and we sure as hell don't need them. When a deer has adapted to the point where it knows how to make and fire a rifle, then it might be superior to a human.

[The Korean]

damnit bob, get rid of your avatar! I don't feel like having 10 seizures a day!

[Bobmuhthol]

But I <3 it.

I just woke up frothing at the mouth, my tongue is bleeding, and there's some strange flashing square...

...As for this aimless post, without scentkiller, how the hell is a human supposed to catch a deer if buck fever sets in? That don't make sense.

[imported_Kranar]

Is a human physically superior to a deer? No, infact, humans aren't physically superior to many animals out in the wild. But that's why we have our mental faculties, to compensate.

Humans have had to live without technology for well, 1000s of years before any form of technology was available and we have managed to do so by setting up traps, using whatever available tools. Infact, it's said that the reason why when a human gets scared the first thing many will do is spread their arms out and look both ways. That's done instinctively to look for any kind of tool available in our surroundings. That's how we managed to win over the rest of the animal kingdom, not by being physically superior, but by being mentally superior and using our mental ability to make up for our physical ability.

So to answer your question, if a human were only able to rely on their physical ability, then a human wouldn't stand much of a chance against a deer. If we went back 2300 years ago, and I pit an average human against a deer inside of the Colleseum whilst 10000s of raging people watched, I'd say the deer would be able to survive over the human.

But out in the wild, where the human has many resources available to him, then the human would definitely be able to survive and hunt down a deer.

Unless a human can use their superior mental capabilities to build a sniper rifle from a few twigs, that is impossible.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Artha
You're wrong.

Nah, one person alone couldn't catch a deer without traps or weapons.


Two or more could force it off a cliff or something along those lines like the pre-historic man did, but I have to agree with her, one single man without the use of tools or weapons could not catch a deer (assuming the deer is healthy)



Originally posted by Artha
Human puts acorns under tree branch.
Human climbs tree, waits for deer.
Deer comes, begins eating acorns.
Human drops on deer, snaps deer's neck.

A winner is Human.

That's a trap, lol.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Hulkein]

[Artha]

Nah, one person alone couldn't catch a deer without traps or weapons.

Sure they could.

[Latrinsorm]

The answer to the question in your first post, Leloo, is human. I don't feel like puzzling out the 90 other questions you changed it into, but the initial question's answer is human.

I always thought agile meant good at turning, especially at high speeds.

[Hulkein]

How? One healthy man and one healthy deer, the man will not catch the deer.

Ok, maybe one out of a million chance the guy will be sitting in a tree and the deer will walk underneath and he can drop down, hopefully land on it, then hope to actually hold it down and kill it with its bare hands... But this isn't going to work often enough to live, assuming you're catching it to eat.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Hulkein]

[DianaBanana]

:weirdthread:

That just about says it all.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Ok, maybe one out of a million chance the guy will be sitting in a tree and the deer will walk underneath and he can drop down, hopefully land on it, then hope to actually hold it down and kill it with its bare hands... But this isn't going to work often enough to live, assuming you're catching it to eat.You assume too much. :yes:

[Hulkein]

Yeah I know, but this question was too odd to take at face value, haha.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Sure they could. >>

A deer can both punch and kick the living crap out of any human, not to mention it can move much faster.

Have you ever seen a deer fight against a human? They just get up on their back legs and start punching without any mercy. Also if a human tries to get it from behind they can kick the human into the air.

Basically put it this way... monkeys don't attack other animals and it's not because they're too nice to do it. A human isn't more physically capable than a monkey and mentally speaking, if we restrict a human being to only their physical capacity, a human is arguable less capable than a monkey. A deer would beat the living crap out of a monkey any day. You can try jumping on the deer, the deer will instantly get on its back legs and shove you off throwing you far away much like a bull will shove off a cowboy.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
I was trying to simply say a human in its natural state, just the human itself not whatever technology they can create. I was going more for that type of situation.

The city is not the human's natural state

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Kranar
A deer can both punch and kick the living crap out of any human, not to mention it can move much faster.Can't outrun a bullet. (While I realize that's not the point of the exercise, it's still fun to say.)

Also, Bruce Lee could totally kick a deer's ass.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Kranar

Basically put it this way... monkeys don't attack other animals and it's not because they're too nice to do it. A human isn't more physically capable than a monkey and mentally speaking, if we restrict a human being to only their physical capacity, a human is arguable less capable than a monkey.

some monkeys are meat eaters and do attack others animals

[Artha]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Ok, maybe one out of a million chance the guy will be sitting in a tree and the deer will walk underneath and he can drop down, hopefully land on it, then hope to actually hold it down and kill it with its bare hands... But this isn't going to work often enough to live, assuming you're catching it to eat.

You have to lure it under the branch...since I'm guessing it's in a forest, and there'll be food, this is possible. Besides, unless it's like a big buck or something, you can probably atleast surprise the hell out of it, which then makes the neck braking easier. And we're not talking about whether or not it can be done enough to live, we're talking about if it's possible. And it is. So I win ;)

[imported_Kranar]

<< some monkeys are meat eaters and do attack others animals >>

Well yeah, frogs and insects mostly. But no monkey will go up against a deer, or a bear, or any animal remotely as big as it.

A marmoset could whip the shit out of a human being.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
You know, the whole reason this entire topic came up was because he was trying to say an animal couldnt love.

:wtf: What does the question of whether a human can capture a deer have to do with love? You need to explain to me at least this part since the rest of it is insane.

[GSLeloo]

Ok he was going "An animal can't be capable of love because it doesn't understand all the complexities of the world and society." He says stuff like this a lot so I was like "you're always so against animals, they can love, and in some ways they are superior to us even though you're always trying to make it like we're better then them." And that's how it started.