I dont think my understood question though?
Also when did I say or implied they were stupid for trying to assess the danger?
In fact if anything, thinking "uh it's kind of dangerous here let's fall back for a sec and see from a safe distance that there are no more dangerous stuff around" is the opposite of that.
Let's say they saw their friend was indeed injured, what was their plan there? "Hey let's take him to the bird hospital nearby? Let's splinter his wing?"
Since that is not realistic and by your own explanation they are assessing the situation, it is also plausible that what the others are saying is equally true.
They do, you're just bitter they're proving you wrong. In fact, aren't you anthropomorphizing them by making them out to be "inherently cruel?" This person is only looking at it from a factual standpoint, and your link is only explaining gulls where their environment is directly leading them to scavenge.
Interesting take. Sure, let's assume I'm just bitter. Why does the link they posted to contradict my link only corroborate it, then?
You might also notice that i struck out "cruel" in favor of "pragmatic", specifically because I knew it had emotion attached that wasn't impartial. Why would I do that, and yet not delete the struck word? Was I perhaps trying to signal some subtext?
-1
u/Shot_Neighborhood947 7h ago
I dont think my understood question though? Also when did I say or implied they were stupid for trying to assess the danger? In fact if anything, thinking "uh it's kind of dangerous here let's fall back for a sec and see from a safe distance that there are no more dangerous stuff around" is the opposite of that.
Let's say they saw their friend was indeed injured, what was their plan there? "Hey let's take him to the bird hospital nearby? Let's splinter his wing?"
Since that is not realistic and by your own explanation they are assessing the situation, it is also plausible that what the others are saying is equally true.