• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sasquatch or as white men call it Bigfoot

Would you kill a Sasquatch

  • BANG. it's dead I'm rich

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • No way, that would be murder

    Votes: 12 70.6%

  • Total voters
    17
Any fantastic stories from your ancient people that you believe? Jesus walking on water?


Understandable; I suppose my blunt refusal to consider the premise was a bit annoying. Allow me to make amends...


To entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it, let's suppose Sasquatch may be real. Let's further suppose I encountered one in the woods while hunting, up close enough that there was no question whether this was a man in a costume.... close enough to see the creature breathe, smell it, to KNOW for sure that what I'm seeing is in fact real.

Assuming it didn't attack me, no I don't think I would shoot it. Not just for whatever fame and money would come my way.

Sasquatch is typically depicted as an upright hairy being that could certainly be construed as a hominid or humanoid life form. If such a being were standing before me in undeniable existence, I think the question of "human/person or animal?" would cause me to be hesitant to kill it/him/her without a very good reason. Besides... for all I know it might be the last of its kind.


Would seem like a waste.


Now, if I had a camera I'd shoot pictures like crazy... and see if I could entice Mr Squatch to follow me back to the house for dinner with the Missus, now THAT would be something... :D
 
It's toast.

Why on Earth wouldn't you take the opportunity to transform a long-standing mystery into objective scientific fact?

It's true that science most often advances by means of human brutality, by the cruel killing of animals and other people. That leads to 'progress'.
 
You can, I still believe in possibilities. I also believe in spirits, Atlantis, and the unknown and the unexplained. I believe we are not alone in the universe, whether we have been visited by some other being from space one can only speculate.

I also think a closed mind is a terrible mind to waste.

Yet, one shoudl not open ones mind so much that their brains fall out either. There is a difference between being open minded, and being gullible.
 
Yet, one shoudl not open ones mind so much that their brains fall out either. There is a difference between being open minded, and being gullible.

That all depends on what you are talking about.
 
No evidence that bigfoot doesnt exist so it is a belief.

Sure there is. There is the huge tracts of land where he is supposd to exist, and hundreds of years of observation that show the resources to provide for a humanoid species doesn't exist.
 
No, not Bigfoot (i'm a cracker) I couldn't shoot him. But by god if I saw that freaking lock Ness monster, I'd blow it's brains out. I hate that stupid thing.

All long necked and pleaseosaur looking. Or, um stump spotted by a drunk fisherman.
 
Sure there is. There is the huge tracts of land where he is supposd to exist, and hundreds of years of observation that show the resources to provide for a humanoid species doesn't exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
This kind of soft hearted approach to science is exactly why many will never know the dangers of the rattlesquirrel. Idiots.
 
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


That is not necessarily so. If there is a lack of evidence where there should be, then that lack of evidence is indeed evidence. For example, if there is a claim that the front desk drawer has an apple in it, and upon looking, we find not evidence of an apple being there, that is evidence that the apple is not there.

So, indeed, absence of evidence CAN indeed be evidence of absence.
 
This kind of soft hearted approach to science is exactly why many will never know the dangers of the rattlesquirrel. Idiots.

Damn straight. Not to mention the crockapotamus. Just because you don't see 'em doesn't mean they don't exist - they would rule the world by eating every single human on the planet if given half a chance. I am here right now to assure such a thing doesn't happen. So far, I've been extremely successful. Do I get any credit? No.
 
That is not necessarily so. If there is a lack of evidence where there should be, then that lack of evidence is indeed evidence. For example, if there is a claim that the front desk drawer has an apple in it, and upon looking, we find not evidence of an apple being there, that is evidence that the apple is not there.

So, indeed, absence of evidence CAN indeed be evidence of absence.

Having a finite area to search and definitively not finding something is evidence it is not there, not a lack of evidence.
 
Damn straight. Not to mention the crockapotamus. Just because you don't see 'em doesn't mean they don't exist - they would rule the world by eating every single human on the planet if given half a chance. I am here right now to assure such a thing doesn't happen. So far, I've been extremely successful. Do I get any credit? No.

Thank you for protecting the world from the crockapotamus!!!
 
Having a finite area to search and definitively not finding something is evidence it is not there, not a lack of evidence.

Any amount of area search is evidence that something is not there. The more area search, over a longer period of time, the more evidence of absense is created.
 
Any amount of area search is evidence that something is not there. The more area search, over a longer period of time, the more evidence of absense is created.

Not when the something can move and then move into an area that has already been searched. The apple cant move out of the drawer then back in after you search it.
 
Not when the something can move and then move into an area that has already been searched. The apple cant move out of the drawer then back in after you search it.

Yet, something like a large primate would leave traces of it's living. It would also have to have a certain amount of food requirements, and there would be evidence of that kind of activity. Evidence that should be there is not. Evidence of fraud about it IS there.
 
Although I've never seen Bigfoot I have had an encounter with a Jackalope. Fearsome creatures to say the least!
 
Being a "Sasquatch" would obviously be some guy in a big foot costume, it would obviously be murder if you shot them.
 
Back
Top Bottom