Posted: Dec 02, 2019 10:24 am
From Cheney’s fascinating account of a leopard being mobbed by the baboon troop immediately it attacked a man, my best guess is that when a leopard hunts in a roosting tree at night, it is in danger from those impressive canines, especially AFTER it manages to make a kill at a height too great for it to jump down the tree from, with the kill in its mouth.
Once again, this is convenient for you as it's not in the same paragraph you quote-mined, but is of course irrelevant about the 'attack on a man'.
Instead, you are inserting something that is not found in your source, and is not found anywhere. The idea that the 'canines' are the threat to the leopard. This is exactly what you attempted before with your claims about chimpanzees lunging with gaping maws to attack people, then when an extended chimpanzee attack recorded on film exhibited NONE of the behavior you kept insisting was fact, you attempted to spin the 0.27 second frame where the chimpanzee's face was away from the camera as being the 'evidence' you were right all along. That kind of behavior is deceptive. Perhaps it's self-deceptive? I don't know whether you're truly fooling yourself with this inane bullshit, but when people reject it and you continue pretending you've shown something in support of your claim, then it is deceptive towards others too.
To wit:
Given that your quote-mine specifically elided the fact that female baboons and juveniles were involved in the mobbing too, and given the fact that neither females nor juveniles possess "impressive canines", then your own argument is internally contradictory as the evidence shows that "impressive canines" are not what makes mobbing succeed.
Of course, on top of that is the fact that a baboon troop (depending on species) is comprised of substantially more females than males, and given that among the information you elided was specific reference to females being particularly hostile and aggressive to leopard, then you need to explain why your attempt to once again spin this information away from what was actually reported in the source you chose shouldn't be taken as indication of your intent to cherrypick and misrepresent information.