There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
You're biased. At first you showed a skeleton (you seem unable to judge an animal's morphology according to his skeleton) after an animal, living under cold climate, in his summer coat. You're simply not coherent.
The following 1 user Likes Spalea's post:1 user Likes Spalea's post • Sanju
06-08-2018, 02:46 PM( This post was last modified: 06-08-2018, 06:04 PM by Rishi )
(06-08-2018, 12:54 PM)Spalea Wrote: You're biased. At first you showed a skeleton (you seem unable to judge an animal's morphology according to his skeleton) after an animal, living under cold climate, in his summer coat. You're simply not coherent.
By saying that the skeleton was rather gracile, I was implying that it looks less robust than other mustelids, given the animal's size; seemingly annoyed, you replied: that no, because when YOU see it, we (?) clearly see a rather stocky animal, that I just needed to imagine it covered with fur, and that the neck, humerus and femurs were thick. You claim those bones are thick, but compared to whose?
Because other mustelids have thicker bones in proportion. Then I said that I don't have to imagine the skeleton covered in fur, because we know the live appearance of the animal, and I gave the example of the snow leopard, which looks compact when it really isn't, like the wolverine. To that you replied that we don't have the same definitions of gracile and stocky, because according to your logic, hair is what makes an animal stocky... So I put a pic of a wolverine in summer, when its coat is shorter and more revealing of the true proportions of the animal, to which you simply straw-manned me, claiming that I'm biased, incoherent and "unable to judge an animal's morphology according to his skeleton", as if we were discussing a paleontological reconstruction, well excuse me.
Sorry for not following the narrative that wolverines are super weasels on steroids that eat steel...
You both need to realize that having different opinions on the matter doesn't mean you have to go at each other's throats at the first sign of said disagreement.
Reacting emotionally to something some siimple as "to me it looks stocky" opposed to "to me it's lean and gracile" it's silly, to say the least.
Accept that you look at it differently, and move on from it.
And one more thing.
You know that here at Wildfact we try to keep it civil at all times. When people of different nacionalities and languages say what they want to say in english, it could potentially come off as an attack or accusing the other of saying or not saying. I know it happens to me from time to time.
So do both things. Read again what you're writing, see if to the other reading it in english comes off as an attack when maybe you're just speaking your opinion, and maybe change it slightly to say the same thing but nicer.
And, on the other hand, don't be over sensitive over a minimal thing and read a sentence for what it's really saying, don't just react emotionally to it.
Then we'll be able to have better discussions and debates, which is one of the ways we can improve this foru and learn at the same time.
Sorry, I totally missed the notification for this. What I meant was if someone else could weigh in what was being discussed rather than how it was being discussed.
Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Not wolverine. So I guess, that both survived :)