The sheer idiocy of people can be truly appalling.

I've been seeing thought trends as this develop subtly over the years--humans reduced to animals and animals elevated to having rights equal with that of humans--and the sharp rap of the gavel to preside over what's right and wrong, in my opinion, has become so relative that judgment is lumped up into meaninglessness. Today's thinking needs to be rethought out.

The internet lets you say things that would get you kicked out of a funeral.

Personally, I don't want people to get hysterical if I die - especially if I was killed by an animal (including humans). Just like Steve Irwin wouldn't want the public to go on a crusade against stingrays. Not being hysterical in no way equates that you stop caring about something.

Fault doesn't necessitate criminal intent at all. If I'm making dinner and drop a glass on the floor which breaks, hell yes that's my fault, but that certainly doesn't mean I had any purpose to the action, let alone criminal intent.

Unless you have another source you didn't provide, you don't have enough information to say the coyotes went "buck wild and started chewing people up and killing them." Predator animals are wired to attack motion - joggers and bikers who race through a predator's habitat run the risk of getting killed, and those the people are the unnatural element of the situation that makes it deadly (since that particular reaction is pretty consistent in predator animals). With serial killers and victims, the serial killer is the unnatural element that causes death. I can't provide information that says that this is the misunderstanding of these specific coyotes, but there's absolutely no reason to promptly assume that coyotes who hunted something in a forest were crazy, bloodthirsty killers.

You're upset about this, and that's fine. Just don't get too emotional and let it cloud your normally sound judgment.

@randaness - 

Check it out: coyotes kill things. It's how they eat. We merely turn a blind eye as long as they don't think humans are on the menu.

Terms like "crazy" and "bloodthirsty" probably aren't meaningful distinctions when applied to natural predators. Put another way, these aren't even the distinctions we're looking for. Your argument is about whether or not it's "natural" to act in a given way, but my point is that this reduces to an argument about how animals are wired. People are animals too; serial killers are people; serial killers are wired in a certain way that makes them kill. If you defend the one, why not defend the other? When it comes down to it you are defending someone or something who kills due to how their brains are wired.

"Not being hysterical in no way equates that you stop caring about something." But it does mean that you don't think it's a big deal.

@moritheil - 

Why on earth would you say we turn a "blind eye" to coyotes eating things? That phrase is generally used to suggest that something is wrong with the behavior.

I don't think you understood what I said in reference to serial killers. The hunting mechanism is consistently present in predator animals, whereas a serial killer is an isolated mutation. And only one has to do with survival. Also, I'm not "defending" either, I'm EXPLAINING.

"But it does mean that you don't think it's a big deal." No, it means you retain the ability to actually think.

@randaness - 

Well, by "turning a blind eye" I mean we don't interfere.

If you want a biological explanation for the practice of shooting animals that kill humans, it's pretty straightforward - supposing there exists some mutation that encourages them to prey on humans, we would want to eliminate that right away. We wouldn't want that to be a successful strategy.

As to your explanation, consider that you are implicitly placing the rights of coyotes to eat (specifically, to eat people) above this woman's right to life. Is this your intent?

@moritheil - 

"If you want a biological explanation for the practice of shooting animals that kill humans, it's pretty straightforward - supposing there exists some mutation that encourages them to prey on humans, we would want to eliminate that right away. We wouldn't want that to be a successful strategy."

This is very frustrating. I said absolutely positively NOTHING to suggest that the rangers who hunted down the attacker coyotes were WRONG. I was merely attempting to present rational alternatives to your emotional outbursts at the commenters. Given that you have reached the conclusion that I am "implicitly placing the rights of coyotes to eat (specifically, to eat people) above this woman's right to life," this conversation is too emotionally charged to be successful.

@randaness - 

Emotion aside, in an argument, interceding on behalf of one party is defending them. You could say you find my criticisms inaccurate, but it appears that that isn't the case either. Did you think I didn't understand their position?

@moritheil - 

I did find your criticisms innaccurate. First, you equated hysteria with care, or at least non-hysteria with coldness. Second, you equated "fault" with "criminal intent." Third, you compared normal predatory practices of wild animals with abnormal predatory practices with mutated individuals. All of your points I found inaccurate, but there are rarely two sides to an argument.

Indifference FTW.

people nowadays are always like ooooh yeah go animal rights! yeah!!! animal riiiights!!! and then when something like this happens, people (of course) don't want to blame it on the animal and stuff. I don't think her death can be blamed on anyone/anything specific.

we've had this conversation with you before, Mori. i agree with you just the same

@randaness - 

Sociopathy turns up in 1% of the population. I'm not saying all sociopaths are serial killers, but I'm going to confidently state that whatever pre-disposition exists towards that 'genetic mutation' occuring is not in any way unique or even particularly rare.

Serial killers are typically drawn to a specific criterion that has some kind of significance; for example, a person with particular physical traits that resembles someone who engenders strong feelings in the killer. By your argument, surely entering the 'territory' of a serial killer when you're displaying such characteristics makes it as much your fault if you're killed as running near where some animal might be hunting?

@Sephraem - 

No, I explicitly stated the opposite.

@randaness - 

Exactly. I was pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. Your example fails for the reasons I stated.

@Sephraem - 

Every argument is based on assumptions. If you have issue with my assumptions, start a discussion about them. Don't disregard them and put words in my mouth.

I'm going to assume you meant to enter into a discussion about serial killers. First of all, the words you used were "unique" and "rare," stating that sociopathy was neither. It doesn't matter if that is true or not, since it is not related to my argument. I stated that this was a natural state, almost entirely developed culturally. Almost all serial killers are present because of environment, which can easily be contributed to sexual abuse, emotional abuse, etc., but environment also includes civilization at large. If someone has inappropriate amygdala responses (improper fear response), what is the likelihood of him/her surviving in a house? What is the likelihood of him/her surviving in a real environment? Serial killers are examples of inappropriate behavior that is eventually self-destructive (I am including the possibility that victims and/or their family will fight back in a natural environment), while coyotes hunting is an example of a very appropriate behavior.

My argument was not at all affected by yours. If you still disagree with my baseline, then disagree with the baseline. Don't invent your own conclusions of what I'm saying.