Posted: Dec 11, 2019 5:37 am
by Jayjay4547
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The voice-over in the monkey island clip said “the chimps mauled his face, nearly ripped off his ear and mangled his hands"


Yes JJ - I know that. I know that because I was the one who originally cited this video - among other videos of chimp attacks - to show that your earlier babushka argument about chimps lunging with their canines at victims was just not true.

You similarly tried to leverage the word 'maul' at the time, and as we established, the word 'maul' offers your argument no solace whatsoever - it's the same issue you repeatedly have where you blinker yourself and pretend that things which contradict your claims actually support your claims.

The word maul doesn't mean 'bite', it means 'violently attack'. Obviously, we can see this - that's what the video is about... and we can see how the chimpanzee is violently attacking its victim. What we can't see is the chimpanzee lunging its gaping maw at its victim.


I didn’t want to go over all this again, just wanting to show that a chimp can grip something (in this case, a man’s hands) without having a hand exactly like a human. But, since you bring it up:

For a chimp to have “mauled” the man’s face, there needed to be physical contact between some part of the chimp and the man’s face. That’s a basic consideration. It’s clear in the video when the interactions have become a crisis for the man, which is during a few seconds when a chimp has a grip on him on the ground and the chimp’s head is close to the man’s .

You repeatedly mischaracterise what I argue as a chimp “lunging its gaping maw at its victim”. The way I do visualise a chimp biting say the face of an enemy, is that it pulls the enemy towards its mouth and bites into it. Then it pulls its head away, tearing out a slash in the victim or a chunk of flesh. If it is biting something smaller say a hand, it may simply nip off a finger.

I get that from accounts of chimp attacks on Nash and Davis, see this pic (with comparison of the damage done by a human biting)



ChimpVictimsNashDavis.jpg


ChimpVictimsNashDavis.jpg (28.28 KiB) Viewed 93 times




and from the meticulous observations made by
Watts et al (2006)

From Table 2: Head and face
"Multiple bites to lips, eyes, ears, mandible Multiple bites to brow ridges, ears; deep, 5 cm puncture/slash along mandibulaymphysis; shallower vertical slash in mandible
L ear torn off, R ear torn for half of length; multiple punctures and
slashes on brow and top of head; lower lip torn Ear torn, nasal septum torn, large gash from R nostril to upper lip,
5 cm gash on lower gum, multiple bites on head and brow ridge 4 cm gash under mandible Neck 1 dorsal puncture Wide, 5 cm horizontal stash on ventral side/Multiple bites on back of neck Severed trachea".


Spearthrower wrote: But we did all this already over the course of 20 or so pages where you refused to acknowledge anything other than the gospel according to JJ, and as I just predicted:

Spearthrower wrote:This is a perfect example of how JJ refuses ever to acknowledge errors, and even though he's now employing this video in direct contradiction to one of his earlier arguments (babushkas) he will no doubt be insistent he's right now, and if pushed, would also insist his prior argument was also right.


It didn't even take much pushing, did it? You're using the same video to contend 2 contrary things.

When you refuse to acknowledge your errors, JJ - it doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes people distrustful of your motivation for arguments and given enough examples, it makes you a figure of fun.


For myself, I’m amazed that you can watch a video of an attack by a chimp, hear the account of the damage done,and not realise that the chimp bit the man. And you think it’s me who is “refusing to acknowledge” what the video shows.
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:... which all could only have happened in a brief period when the man (John Maclaughlin(sp?)) was crouching on the ground trying a submissive posture.


Actually, it happened throughout the extended period of being pummeled, bashed, tugged and generally laid into by the chimpanzee.

It seems to me that the man tried social responses to an escalating situation, like submission and grooming but once this face started being bitten by a particular attacker, he got up, still gripped by his attacker, was swung around violently but managed to get into the water and off the island, where his attacker did not follow.
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: I didn’t want to discuss that now, Like I said, I just wanted to demonstrate that the chimp was able to hold a man’s hands strongly.

Because anyone ever contended that a chimpanzee could not hold a man's hand strongly? :grin: /Chimps climb trees primarily with their hands, JJ - no one's arguing that chimps are unable to grip with their hands. You are, as usual, ignoring the arguments made which you can't contend, strawmanning a weakest possible version that no one has argued, then pretending you're scoring some points.


The issue i was discussing this time was whether a primate with hands unlike ours, can hold a weapon. You claimed that australopithecines couldn’t do that. The video showed a chimp gripping a man’s hand where the man is trying to pull away in a similar direction to how a hammer tries to pull away from the hand, not the way a brachiating ape might swing from a branch.

Spearthrower wrote: I also will point out here that the last time you misrepresented me and I showed numerous quotations of how you had misrepresented me... you ignored it rather than either acknowledging it and retracting your statement, or offering some explanation as to why you had so thoroughly misrepresented me. This answers the protest you made a couple of pages back about how people are obliged to provide examples when they call you out for lying. I gave more than adequate examples, and you've ignored it. Why then are people obliged to exemplify their accusation if the outcome is the same: you ignoring it.


You usually respond very quickly to my posts with a slew of your own, to which I don’t always respond, especially when I’ve been interestingly engaged by a poster like zoon. And especially considering your hysterically bullying tone, calling me a compulsive liar and a lying little runt.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There is plenty of evidence that chimps do use their canines to maim and sometimes kill.


You're repeating all the ground we've already covered./Of course chimps use their teeth to eat, just like all other animals in the world.


You are playing games with words. The chimp in the video wasn’t interested in “eating” the man. It was intent on causing damage, as in the attacks on Nash, Davis and more recently, Andrew Oberle. And the conspecific attacks Watts recounted. There really is a contrast between the way a chimp attacks an enemy and how a human does, that is significant for analysing how our ancestors related with their predators.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
and also, at least 3 horrific attacks by chimps on people.


Yes, and how many horrific attacks by humans on people? And all those attacks where modern H sapiens bites a chunk out of their victim... *waved away instantly*.


Interesting how people see things differently. I see you, throughout this exchange on chimp habits, as being utterly obtuse.