How many fatal shark attacks to stop you diving

[Foxfish]

Can you cite these cases, please? I was only able to Google 4 fatal attacks against scuba divers in your area in the last 25 years, one which may have been postmortem scavenging and one of which involved abalone fishing, which is not a normal diving activity.

Check the Shark Attack Files for the global statistics on shark attacks. I had a quick look and couldn't see more than five fatal attacks in a region as defined in the OP in a 12 month period.

I understand that you crafted the post in order to give the result you wanted. I think that's pretty clear. However, the result you wanted is not the result that would be supported by the majority of divers. Does this not make you question the validity of your poll? R..

Going over old ground here. I've previously discussed in detail the rationale behind the various limits. Clearly we don't agree.

---------- Post added February 24th, 2014 at 09:38 AM ----------

I've noted that five fatal attacks in a 12 month period seems to be the upper limit that is typically tolerated by communities.

Like Hell! You do not speak for the community in its entirety you are speaking to hear what you want. You certainly do not represent me, my diving, fishing, sailing, surfing, beach going friends including those who have lost brothers to sharks in Australian waters. Do NOT purport to represent the thinking of anyone else let alone everyone else. What you have ''noted'' is nothing more than your opinion.

You are one person and are entitled to your opinion. The comment I made was with reference to fatal shark attacks world wide.

 

[boulderjohn]

You, like many others on the thread have missed the point. In simple terms I've asked, 'How much risk of a fatal shark attack are you prepared to accept as a diver'. The most common response has been that divers 'don't care' ie. they would dive an area even if a fatal shark attack was inevitable.

Like Rodney Fox, I call this madness.

Yes I agree with that. But then given that most divers on the poll have indicated they would dive with no care or regard for the level of risk of a fatal shark attack it comes as no surprise.

No, because you JUST DONT ****ING PAY ATTENTION! So you haven't understood a damn word of what peoples been saying.
We DO NOT ignore the risk of shark attacks or anything else, WE ASSESS IT IN A RATIONAL WAY. In other words, we look at the circumstances of the attacks and WHOS BEEN ATTACKED and by looking at those things you see that the VERY, VERY, VERY VAST MAJORITY OF SHARK ATTACKS IS NOT ON DIVERS!

Foxfish, Tigerman was driven to screaming at you in all caps to try to get you to see the absurdity of your conclusions. Let me give it a go.

Let's say that there was a sudden and significant increase in the number of mugging-related murders in downtown Denver, Colorado. Would you then run a poll asking how many murders in Colorado would it take to make you stop hiking in the Colorado Rocky Mountains?

No matter how many shark attacks on surface swimmers there are in a particular region, the attacks on divers are stunningly rare. The underwater realm is as different from the surface. Divers are not saying that they will dive even if a shark attack is "inevitable;" divers are saying they will dive because the probability of a shark attack on a diver is almost zero. The number of people attacked while surfing, snorkeling, or swimming on the surface is meaningless. The only statistic that matters to dives is the number of people attacked while diving, and those numbers are close to nonexistent.

 

[CT-Rich]

Check the Shark Attack Files for the global statistics on shark attacks. I had a quick look and couldn't see more than five fatal attacks in a region as defined in the OP in a 12 month period.



Going over old ground here. I've previously discussed in detail the rationale behind the various limits. Clearly we don't agree.

---------- Post added February 24th, 2014 at 09:38 AM ----------



You are one person and are entitled to your opinion. The comment I made was with reference to fatal shark attacks world wide.

Holy Crap!!! Now he speaks for the Whole World!!! Damn..... I bet those Siberian yert builders would be surprised... They just found out Stalin died.

Wingy... you've lost the argument... You and your friends have only one opinion... Foxfish has the whole world to think for...

Damn and I was hoping to at least speak for the trees....


---------- Post added February 24th, 2014 at 10:22 AM ----------

this reminds me of all the Americans that stopped flying due to terrorism. The likelihood of dying while driving to Florida is probably 10x greater than if you flew. Of course that is just an irrational response to a media hyped hysteria.... As opposed to the rational reasoning of Foxfish

 

[JayScuba]

More sharks the better! They make great photo ops!

 

[CT-Rich]

Check the Shark Attack Files for the global statistics on shark attacks. I had a quick look and couldn't see more than five fatal attacks in a region as defined in the OP in a 12 month period.



Going over old ground here. I've previously discussed in detail the rationale behind the various limits. Clearly we don't agree.

---------- Post added February 24th, 2014 at 09:38 AM ----------



You are one person and are entitled to your opinion. The comment I made was with reference to fatal shark attacks world wide.

Translation: I am wrong, but cannot be reasoned with....

 

[boulderjohn]

My past studies of literature make me wonder how the American writers and philosophers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David through would perceive this thread. Both were outright champions of an individual holding fast to a belief in the face of overwhelming opposition. Emerson's Self Reliance is the best statement of that ideal. The more famous is the part of Thoreau's Walden in which he says, "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

With those ideals, it is likely that they would admire the persistence of someone who holds to a belief despite the fact that he faces 100% opposition to that belief over more than 250 posts in a thread. I would never have such courage myself.

On the other hand, both firmly argued that we should live in accord with nature, so they would in this argument be well within that opposition. They would celebrate the OP's willingness to cling to a belief while firmly disagreeing with that belief themselves.

Both Emerson and Thoreau met with Walt Whitman during the height of his being attacked for his latest controversial additions to Leaves of Grass, and based on the advice they gave him then, I believe they would point out a key part of Emerson's "Self Reliance," in which he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." In other words, if you have been proudly and strongly proclaiming a belief and then one day realize you are wrong, it will be wrong to persist in that belief for the sake of consistency. Speak what you believe now with the same fervor with which you said the opposite the day before.

Putting it all together, the wise individual, the true transcendentalist in Emerson's terms, is the one who can hold a belief in the face of stern opposition and yet be not afraid to reverse course publicly and without shame when he or she realizes that the opposition was ultimately correct.

 

[KevWind]

... they have only one eye, one horn, and they're purple ... and they don't eat pumpkins ...

One Eyed one Horned Flying Purple People Eater - YouTube

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Oh are you sure ? I thought maybe there was an aquatic sub species that primarily fed on sea pumpkins, (in the same genus as sea cucumbers perhaps ?) but rounder and orange. Perhaps the fatalities are more related territorial imperative. Specially since NetDoc would never spin a yarn would he?

Sides . "One eyed --- one horned --- swimming purple pumpkin eater" has the same number of syllables, same cadence, and is just as catchy a song hook. And has about the same quality of relevance as the OP poll to objective discussion.

 

[CT-Rich]

My past studies of literature make me wonder how the American writers and philosophers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David through would perceive this thread. Both were outright champions of an individual holding fast to a belief in the face of overwhelming opposition. Emerson's Self Reliance is the best statement of that ideal. The more famous is the part of Thoreau's Walden in which he says, "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

With those ideals, it is likely that they would admire the persistence of someone who holds to a belief despite the fact that he faces 100% opposition to that belief over more than 250 posts in a thread. I would never have such courage myself.

On the other hand, both firmly argued that we should live in accord with nature, so they would in this argument be well within that opposition. They would celebrate the OP's willingness to cling to a belief while firmly disagreeing with that belief themselves.

Both Emerson and Thoreau met with Walt Whitman during the height of his being attacked for his latest controversial additions to Leaves of Grass, and based on the advice they gave him then, I believe they would point out a key part of Emerson's "Self Reliance," in which he said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." In other words, if you have been proudly and strongly proclaiming a belief and then one day realize you are wrong, it will be wrong to persist in that belief for the sake of consistency. Speak what you believe now with the same fervor with which you said the opposite the day before.

Putting it all together, the wise individual, the true transcendentalist in Emerson's terms, is the one who can hold a belief in the face of stern opposition and yet be not afraid to reverse course publicly and without shame when he or she realizes that the opposition was ultimately correct.

I tip my hat to you Sir for elevating this discussion, from the decrepit pit of humor and absurdism that it has recently sunk. Although I would say that both Emerson and Thoreau were heartily in favor or thoughtful debate and finding man's place with in the natural world (based on rational thought, not dynamite fishing...)

A number of posters have tried unsuccessfully to explain the flawed reasoning that underpins the OP's argument to him. While a wise man may stick to his core beliefs, the OP is sticking to his poorly thought out poll, which appears to be designed to push a certain view. My concern is for, as you quoted Emerson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." I feel a number of posters have been trying to shake free the "foolish consistency" of the OP. He seems to be surprised by the fact that most people are not expressing his opinion... Which begs the question, "if you already have an unshakable belief in your answer, why are you asking me?"

Me, I gave up a while ago and have been mostly trying to have some fun while illuminating the contradictions.

 

[Foxfish]

Foxfish, Tigerman was driven to screaming at you in all caps to try to get you to see the absurdity of your conclusions. Let me give it a go.

Let's say that there was a sudden and significant increase in the number of mugging-related murders in downtown Denver, Colorado. Would you then run a poll asking how many murders in Colorado would it take to make you stop hiking in the Colorado Rocky Mountains?

No matter how many shark attacks on surface swimmers there are in a particular region, the attacks on divers are stunningly rare. The underwater realm is as different from the surface. Divers are not saying that they will dive even if a shark attack is "inevitable;" divers are saying they will dive because the probability of a shark attack on a diver is almost zero. The number of people attacked while surfing, snorkeling, or swimming on the surface is meaningless. The only statistic that matters to dives is the number of people attacked while diving, and those numbers are close to nonexistent.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Tigers objections have been dealt with ad nauseam. He just needs to read previous posts and understand what is being said.

In our area fatal attacks on scuba divers is significant. You need to read back over the thread for the information provided.

 

[shoredivr]

Perhaps the OP should confine his diving to fresh water, and avoid large sharks altogether.