holy crap

[snakeguy101]

I wouldn't say life and death to such an extreme, the cattle would have been important to them but not exactly life and death. They wouldn't be bothered to go killing the croc when worrying about how to get cattle to eat for their next meal. This implies that they simply wanted to prevent the croc from chomping on future cattle, which also means that...the reason for why they killed the croc can be considered invalid.

And for the second part, what makes a human life more significant than an ancient croc's? Nothing.

I don't want to turn this into an argument but the cattle could have been their only source of income and or food so if the croc was threatening that then the only thing for them to do was to get rid of the croc. Also, what if YOUR kid was threatened by a huge croc? Humans and animals are not equal and people seem to think that they are from a distance but when it comes to it, they would never endanger a loved one just to avoid killing an animal. I would definitely kill the croc if I lived on the river that I had to use for a bathroom, dishwasher, bathtub, and everything else. It posed a huge risk to these people since it was so close to something so vital for them.

Again, I am not saying that I like that they killed the croc, just that I understand why.

 

[snakefin]

Fair point. You know, technically...I am a kid. XD.
And yes, we ought to end the argument here, derails, derails...

 

[lujor]

What makes a human life "more significant" than an ancient crocs? Common sense for one. I hope I am msunderstanding that statement, because it would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy to say that and keep any pet.