Milk, it really does do a body good

[Ziggurat]

Cite your source or just stop it.

He's using Google. It's basically the laziest way to look up a definition. It's a foolish form of pedantry, since the specific aspect of the definition he's relying on is not universally shared by other dictionaries. And particularly so for him since he already got burned once in this very thread when he tried to use it for "natural", and didn't notice that there was more than one entry.

Really, Roger, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Dolphins would eat humans if we were small enough to fit in their mouths.

DO DOLPHINS EAT PEOPLE?

Making up just so stories again roger?

There are several dolphin species big enough to harm humans and even potentially eat them. But no. Dolphins do not eat people.

DO DOLPHINS EAT PEOPLE?


No, dolphins do not eat people.

Despite stories and various forms of fiction showing dolphins (mainly the killer whale) and whales (such as the blue whale and sperm whale) as man-eating marine mammals most dolphins are actually very friendly and those that are less social tend to be more distant and shy often staying away from humans.

Although the killer whale is called a “killer whale” it actually belongs to the dolphin family.

This marine mammal gets its name from its large size (killer whales can grow between 15 – 30 ft. long) and because of its diet.

In fact the killer whale is the largest of the dolphin species, hence the “whale” part of its name.

While the killer whale can be observed eating fish, squid and octopus along with large animals such as sea lions, seals, walruses, penguins, dolphins (yes they eat dolphins) and whales they do not appear to have any desire towards eating humans and there has never been a case of a killer whale eating a person either partially or completely.

 

[casebro]

DO DOLPHINS EAT PEOPLE?

Making up just so stories again roger?

There are several dolphin species big enough to harm humans and even potentially eat them. But no. Dolphins do not eat people.

Killer whales at aquarium shows sure as hell have bitten their trainers. But I suppose it take a couple to eat a large animal our size, they have to tear it apart like a pack of dogs. Or grab a hold, and spin/shake until a throat size chunk comes off.

 

[John Jones]

Killer whales at aquarium shows sure as hell have bitten their trainers. But I suppose it take a couple to eat a large animal our size, they have to tear it apart like a pack of dogs. Or grab a hold, and spin/shake until a throat size chunk comes off.

nobody said they don't bite.

 

[casebro]

nobody said they don't bite.

I suspect they do eat- ALL of the evidence.

I've seen the videos of them grabbing seals off the beach, and tossing one in the air like a cat does with a mouse.

Gee, I don't know why no diver has ever gotten an underwater video of one actually eating large prey. Might be a bit risky, eh?

Though we may differ from seals by not being as fatty, and we have larger bones-femurs?

Still, how to prove a negative?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

He's using Google. It's basically the laziest way to look up a definition. It's a foolish form of pedantry, since the specific aspect of the definition he's relying on is not universally shared by other dictionaries.

Really? From you own link:-

Definition of us for English Language Learners

—used to refer to the speaker and another person or group of people as the indirect object or direct object of a verb

: people in general​

Now who's embarrassed?

 

[Ziggurat]

Really? From you own link:-

Definition of us for English Language Learners

—used to refer to the speaker and another person or group of people as the indirect object or direct object of a verb

: people in general​

Now who's embarrassed?

Yes, I'm embarrassed.

I'm ebarrassed for you, since you keep failing so badly. Let's see what is says for non-English learners (ie, people who can speak English already):

objective case of we

OK, so what's the definition of "we"?

1: I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural We live here. We would like to order now. We had a party at school. — compare i, our, ours, us​

Does that definition require that the group includes only homo sapiens? No, it doesn't. The non-learner's definition (ie, the more complete, not-simplified version) imposes no such requirement.

This shouldn't be a mystery. It is quite common to use pronouns to refer to both humans and animals. "We went for a walk" when referring to one human walking with a dog, for example. This cannot seriously be the first time you've encountered such usage. And usage is ultimately what creates definitions. Dictionaries serve merely to condense that information for convenience, they do not actually create the meaning of words.

You tried to play pedant, and you failed. Three times in a row now. Don't keep exacerbating your failures. How many more will it take before you learn that you're just not equipped to make an argument from dictionary definition?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

DO DOLPHINS EAT PEOPLE?

Making up just so stories again roger?

Did I say that dolphins eat people? No.

I'm not sure why Fudbucker thinks that some 'higher' animals should be off the menu. I suspect it's due to a misplaced feeling of affinity towards creatures with similar intelligence to ours - but those 'higher' animals are not squeamish about eating other 'higher' animals if they look tasty.

While the killer whale can be observed eating fish, squid and octopus

Cephalopod intelligence

The cephalopod class of molluscs, particularly the Coleoidea subclass (cuttlefish, squid, and octopuses), are thought to be the most intelligent invertebrates and an important example of advanced cognitive evolution in animals...

Due to their intelligence, cephalopods are commonly protected by animal testing regulations that do not usually apply to invertebrates.

And yet we eat them.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

1: I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural We live here. We would like to order now. We had a party at school. — compare i, our, ours, us​

Does that definition require that the group includes only homo sapiens? No, it doesn't.

Does that definition require that the group includes only animals? No, it doesn't. In fact it doesn't say anything at all about what the group may include. It's not stated because it is assumed that the reader knows that "I and another or others" refers to people. The definition for English language learners does not make that assumption, which is why it spells it out.

This shouldn't be a mystery. It is quite common to use pronouns to refer to both humans and animals. "We went for a walk" when referring to one human walking with a dog, for example.

So when someone uses the word 'we', we can assume they meant the entire animal kingdom? That's ridiculous.

You tried to play pedant, and you failed.

I am not the one who is twisting words until they have no meaning.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Did I say that dolphins eat people? No.

Actually you said, "

Dolphins would eat humans if we were small enough to fit in their mouths.

I showed clearly we are and no they don't.

I'm not sure why Fudbucker thinks that some 'higher' animals should be off the menu. I suspect it's due to a misplaced feeling of affinity towards creatures with similar intelligence to ours - but those 'higher' animals are not squeamish about eating other 'higher' animals if they look tasty.

That's a bit better and I would agree. But easy to understand Fudbucker. It's the same reason we don't eat dogs, and Indians don't eat cows and Jews don't eat pork. And why no civilized peoples eat other people. It is a cultural bias. One of the most defining aspects of a culture is what we choose to eat. After all humans are well evolved to eat pretty much anything!

 

[Ziggurat]

Does that definition require that the group includes only animals? No, it doesn't. In fact it doesn't say anything at all about what the group may include.

Exactly. So you determine what's included by context. What's included is whatever the speaker intended to include. Which can include animals.

It's not stated because it is assumed that the reader knows that "I and another or others" refers to people.

You have invented this requirement out of thin air.

So when someone uses the word 'we', we can assume they meant the entire animal kingdom? That's ridiculous.

Yes, that would be ridiculous. Good thing it's not what I actually said. That something CAN be included in a group doesn't mean that it MUST be included in that group. Is that too hard a concept for you to grasp?

I am not the one who is twisting words until they have no meaning.

Nobody is. But you are twisting words until they mean something different than theprestige obviously intended them to mean. And your justifications for doing so are, frankly, pathetic.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you sure?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xd74nd/we-asked-a-botanist-how-sure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

That doesn't even get into all the animals that vegetarians do exploit, like those involved in the making of kimchi and beer.

As to the semantic discussion, is the following incorrect usage: My dog and I were walking down the street when a car swerved and nearly hit us.

If it is relevant to the story, both kimchi and beer were involved.

 

[Ziggurat]

As to the semantic discussion, is the following incorrect usage: My dog and I were walking down the street when a car swerved and nearly hit us.

I wish you had written "Me and my dog" so I could rail on you for that, but it all looks correct to me.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I wish you had written "Me and my dog" so I could rail on you for that, but it all looks correct to me.

I am truly sorry of the missed opportunity. I'll surely make it up to you in short order. Bad grammar is one of my natural skills, along with poor typing and ignoring all rules regarding commas.

I just wanted to check is my usage of us implied there were more people on that sidewalk.

 

[casebro]

I and my friends saw your dog get hit almost . Bad driving is something up with which I will not put.