Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 323 posts

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#161

Post by wefarrell »

This is the most interesting part:

"We've seen that when an individual is attacked in some way, the likelihood of them attacking someone related to their aggressor is higher," Poindexter told Gizmodo. "Typically there's a preference for attacking a third-party associated with the original aggressor, as opposed to the actual aggressor...for the most part, these acts of 'revenge' take place shortly after the attack."

Poindexter also explained that groups of hyenas have been known to seek revenge on the aggressor's relatives instead of the actual aggressor.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#162

Post by csomar »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #24

Baboons have been know to kidnapping puppies too. They live with the troop and offer protection as warning/guard dogs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2lSZPTa3ho

Wow. It might be possible that our relation/domestication of dogs started well before we become sapiens. Because, why would the baboons pick a dog and not a tiger.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#164

Post by PicassoCTs »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #119
unmole wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Langoor monkeys are a fearsome force in India and not to be messed with. I thought langoors were more friendly towards humans compared to macaques?

As a general rule, animals never attack first. When humans encroach the traditional lands of the animals there are conflicts waiting to happen. Monkeys are smart and usually don’t bother humans, unless it’s a matter of food or threat to their group. Edit: I'm surprised at the downvotes, isn't human-wildlife conflict in Indian forests well documented?

At least one animal does. Homo sapiens. We are not separate from nature, we are just a extreme of nature.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#165

Post by frosted-flakes »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #164
FlyingSnake wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a general rule, animals never attack first. When humans encroach the traditional lands of the animals there are conflicts waiting to happen. Monkeys are smart and usually don’t bother humans, unless it’s a matter of food or threat to their group. Edit: I'm surprised at the downvotes, isn't human-wildlife conflict in Indian forests well documented?

At least one animal does. Homo sapiens. We are not separate from nature, we are just a extreme of nature.

That's one interpretation of the word "animal". The use above clearly meant non-human animals.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#166

Post by Gunax »

bckr wrote: post #143
nashashmi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most animals are capable of revenge. Story: A family in Palestine were doing a routine cleaning of the house. They had a snake nest in the house and it was no pet snake. So to clean better they put the nest and eggs in a different corner. The snake came back looking for the nest and could not find it. It looked around with no luck. It went to the family water vase (because there was no piped water supply) and spit in…

That's an interesting story, albeit one that sounds like a good fairy tale. Any source for this?

While normally people differentiate 'venom' from 'poison' to be pedantic, I don't think snake venom is particularly harmful if ingested.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#167

Post by [deleted] »

hn8788 wrote: post #102
mc32 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deer? Those are from 500 pounds to over one thousand pounds. Oh courses a person can’t engage in a physical fight with them.

I'm guessing you're from Europe, because what you call Deer, the USA call Caribou or Elk, and what we call Deer aren't nearly that big.

[deleted]

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#168

Post by polishdude20 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #108
jimmyed wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder how many times this has been done with humans throughout history

When America was trying to install a “democratic” government in Iraq there were a series of assassinations. In that case however the situation eventually stabilized. So that strategy is only as good as your opponents will. And it turns out there’s a lot of men who are willing to throw away their life in the hope of the power, money and prestige of being the top boss.

I wouldnt be so quick to say they're throwing their life away. Imagine being in a group with a tyrannical boss. Installing yourself as the boss may actually help save your life and ensure a future for you and your community/tribe.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#169

Post by Retric »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #119
unmole wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Langoor monkeys are a fearsome force in India and not to be messed with. I thought langoors were more friendly towards humans compared to macaques?

As a general rule, animals never attack first. When humans encroach the traditional lands of the animals there are conflicts waiting to happen. Monkeys are smart and usually don’t bother humans, unless it’s a matter of food or threat to their group. Edit: I'm surprised at the downvotes, isn't human-wildlife conflict in Indian forests well documented?

As a general rule that’s true but useless. Humans are relatively large animals that most creatures don’t want to mess with. But a hippo for example isn’t discouraged by this.

Also the deadliest North American wildlife is the deer almost entirely because they’re jumping in front of cars.

Re: Group of monkeys kill over 250 dogs for 'revenge' in Indian town

#170

Post by Amezarak »

adventured wrote: post #150
steego wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would humans experience revenge differently? What makes you think revenge isn’t an instinct in humans? I recall reading (the book escapes me), that just about all animals employ a Tit-for-Tat mechanism for dealing with other animals of the same species that cheat. Revenge is a very useful social tool, especially against other species threatening their offspring.

> What makes you think revenge isn’t an instinct in humans? An instinct is something you have no choice over, it's automatic. Humans very clearly have a choice as to whether they pursue revenge or not. If someone wrongs me in a given way, I can choose how to respond, or to not respond at all; and I can spend as much time as I like (decades if I choose to) pondering on that. It's doubtful these monkeys function quite…

> An instinct is something you have no choice over, it's automatic.

I think this is a common but entirely wrong model, and I'm not sure why people hold it.

Do you think humans have no instincts? I would argue exactly the opposite, humans, like all animals, are driven almost entirely by instinct, whether it's prosocial instincts causing you to have a moral code much like those around you, inspiring guilt and shame when you break it, or causing you to feel a need to talk to people and comment on Internet stories, reproductive instincts driving you to seek a mate, or survival instincts to ensure a regular food supply.

I think it works exactly the same way in all animals. They are equally capable of making choices, because choice is a preconscious thing, not something that occurs as a result of careful, reasoned intellect. Obviously, humans are capable of making more informed choices, but "reason" is mostly a post-hoc rationalization engine.

Post reply on HN