"Experts are divided as to whether the injuries and deaths were accidental or deliberate attempts to cause harm"
I mean, i don't know, if you can't come up with a single clear cut example in the wild in all of human history, i think that is enough to put them very low on the threat list.
Strawman. The claim disputed was specifically "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history.", not "they're low on the threat list".
That claim was made in response to a different claim above, to which "orcas have not been clearly shown to attack humans outside captivity" is a perfectly cromulent response. Pedantry like this really is annoying. This isn't high school debate.
The personal attacks on me with claims of pedantry are erroneous and offensive. What I noted is a textbook example of a strawman argument, and neither of the attacks on me are relevant or accurate.
B) according to the article there is no consensus among scientists that any of these incidents actually constitute an "attack". So if we are being this level of pedantic, its arguably true that "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history."
Given that orcas are apex predators, I think it’s worthwhile to make the distinction between death or injury of humans due to direct predation versus accidental or indirect means.
> It's a lot like when we "share" our worms with fish.
So, it is a relevant distinction, the theory of that comment is that they are using them as bait for humans. That they aren’t ever recorded as intentionally killing and eating humans is relevant.
They fight boats for other reasons apparently, maybe they or territorial, or maybe the boats are making some annoying nose?
