Dual Survival - Cauterization

[Ravaillac]

That discussion's really getting pathetic.

 

[stabman]

Out of curosity, are you sure your not thinking of the movie "The Edge" staring Anthony Hopkins & Alex Baldwin?

Kind regards
Mick

No, not thinking of movies.
Just because someone does not view things the way YOU do does not mean they inhabit a delusional land of made-up fantasy happenings.
I suspect you know that though, and are just trying to make others look foolish as an attempt to bolster your credibility.

 

[KuRUpTD]

If they do, I would really love to see their posts. :thumbup:

Again, how many posts show that the regulars here venture out of their local area and into another country?

Stabman,

Rule#1: Always carry a camera on your person in the event a situation needs to be documented.
Rule#2: If it ain't posted on a forum and there aren't any pics to prove it ... it didn't happen.

Regards

 

[Rick Marchand]

No, no. I'm just saying that on his home field, Les can probably feed himself. We're watching him struggle in foreign environments. It's entertain, we all get that. But, the guy probably does have some skills, in reality. I've seen him do some neat tricks.

Les has skills... his home terrain is Northern Ontario. He and I share the same mentor and I can assure you, Les is very adept in the northern wilderness. Check out "Snowshoes and Solitudes" He and his wife lived in the Canadian North for a year. They basically canoed in with packs and an axe.

Les's shows are for entertainment. He puts himself into situations that he is not familiar with and uses skills/equipment that he may not be profficient at.

It would be boring to the average viewer to watch real wilderness living. Folks with moderate skill and the proper mindset wouldn't be getting into these situations in the first place.

There is no such thing as true "reality" television.

We've got folks on this board that are approaching this subject from any of three directions....

1. You have little to no experience and view the shows as realistic and informationally accurate.

2. You have moderate experience and view the shows as both entertaining and educational. Which they can be, if you have the ability to separate skill from entertainment.

3. You have ample experience and view the shows as portraying unrealistic scenarios and dangerous advice.

 

[dartanyon]

I thank the good LORD that my parents didn't rely on tv shows to send a message to us kids.

I'm not quite sure what your response is meant to mean, sarcasm may need to be used with wit to be obvious...

As for TV sending a message to our kids ... hadn't you noticed?

 

[stabman]

Stabman,

Rule#2: If it ain't posted on a forum and there aren't any pics to prove it ... it didn't happen.

Regards

That's true.
Today I didn't wake up, didn't eat, didn't go to class or drink coffee...
In fact, I'm not typing this right now, due the fact that the camera is broken!

 

[dougo83]

I'm not quite sure what your response is meant to mean, sarcasm may need to be used with wit to be obvious...

As for TV sending a message to our kids ... hadn't you noticed?

No sarcasm. No hidden meaning. Nothing a little basic English comprehension can't figure out. As far as tv is concerned, if you rely on that to send a message to your children, you are a complete failure at life and parenting and should not even have children.

 

[dartanyon]

No sarcasm. No hidden meaning. Nothing a little basic English comprehension can't figure out. As far as tv is concerned, if you rely on that to send a message to your children, you are a complete failure at life and parenting and should not even have children.

Mate??? ... I'm shaking my head in disbelief if you think that kids don't get messages from TV! Do you go out much?
It's just one of many mediums used to communicate messages and our kids are the most vulnerable. Nothing a little basic psychology can't figure out. Have you heard of subliminal messaging and desensitization? Being aware that it even exists is part of "good" parenting.
Cutting yourself open to portray some "hard core" image is not what we should be showing our kids or do you think they should just "man up"?

As for "complete failure at life and parenting" ... maybe we've all got something to learn

 

[dougo83]

Mate??? ... I'm shaking my head in disbelief if you think that kids don't get messages from TV!

Did I say that anywhere?

Cutting yourself open to portray some "hard core" image is not what we should be showing our kids or do you think they should just "man up"?

Umm...this is pretty much what I said. Ya know...where I said I was glad my parents didn't rely on tv to "send messages" to me and my siblings...

My parents made their share of mistakes but they were very clear that the tv is the tv. There is a reason it is called the "idiot box" and I was made aware of that at a young age. In fact, I rarely watched tv as a kid because I had dogs and a back yard and a ranch to play on. Much more exciting that whatever nonsense is on. If a parent cannot at least show their children that tv is solely for entertainment, they have failed IMHO.

 

[dartanyon]

dougo rationalising with you on this discussion is proving to be a difficult process.
The idiot box stretches far and wide, farther and wider than you're possibly going to admit.

"tv is solely for entertainment" .... mmmm ... point being that people also watch news and maybe even documentaries, stuff like that ... yea?
Over here in Australia we even have edoocational stuff on da box.

Is the message "hard core" or "cauterization"?? Please at least agree that there is a message ... somewhere.

 

[Eight Trigrams]

Wow. Alright, I mostly avoid these dogpiles when I see them, being a firm believer in the "post less, read moar" philosophy of internet-forum participation. But I figure since we already have approx. 5,900 doctors and EMTs dropping into this thread from nowhere, I might as well posit a hypothetical:

Say you're out in the boonies, maybe 20 miles from the nearest road for whatever reason and there's no cell-phone service in your area. Let's make it the jungle just to make the infections more exciting. AND you lost your first aid kit for whatever reason, but you have access to bullets and/or a fire. You're whacking at some piece of wood with your axe or machete and something goes horribly wrong. The thing sticks in your leg and starts gushing blood from an artery near the surface. You tourniquet the leg immediately with your mad medical skillz, and it slows the bleeding but doesn't completely stop it.

Now, I'm not saying that cauterization would be your first or only choice (and I really would like to hear your course of action), but I'd think given the severity of your current situation that cauterization would at least be a handy bit of knowledge to have in your toolbox, no?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with pretty much all the posters that cauterization is something that qualifies as last-ditch and that the vast majority of people injured in the wilderness, even far from medical attention, will never even have to think about the option, making learning about the procedure pretty pointless. But then again, since anyone who goes out into the woods with ANY bushcraft knowledge will carry multiple sources of ignition, you could pretty much say the same thing about learning how to make a bow drill.

And did anyone see the black-powder rifle that was leaning against the fallen tree next to Canterbury at the end of the video? It's probably a re-enactment episode from the Oregon Trail era or thereabouts, from a time when cauterization was as much of a first aid skill as CPR is today. You know, back before the Native Americans or Western settlers had you EMTs to tell them how stupid they all were.

So is what they did a stunt? Yeah. Was it staged in a pretty moronic way? Yeah. Are they in it for the money? Duh. Is cauterization a particularly useful procedure to learn about? Nope. But is it a genuine primitive survival skill?

 

[dougshoe]

RE "people also watch news and maybe even documentaries, stuff like that ... yea? Over here in Australia we even have edoocational stuff on da box."

I think that's the problem with the survival shows. It is presented as useful information- What to do to survive. But then the information they give you is silly stuff that could get a person dead. Many people don't know any better and take it as real information to use if the situation arises. That is dangerous. If some city dweller gets in trouble in the woods and tries to copy what he saw on TV, then he is REALLY in trouble. The TV survival buffoonery might be fun to watch (in a Three Stooges sort of way) but it should be presented as comedy, not reality. My favorite episode is when Will Ferrell tagged along with Bear on Man vs Wild. "Is it time to drink our pee yet? Is it time to drink our pee? Do we drink our pee now? I hate to keep asking, so maybe you can just give me a signal when it's time to drink our pee. What signal should we have when it's pee drinking time? Is it time to drink our pee yet?"

 

[dartanyon]

dougshoe, well said mate :thumbup:

 

[dougo83]

The idiot box stretches far and wide, farther and wider than you're possibly going to admit.

Perhaps you are right. I do not own one anymore because of the waste of...everything it is. I see waaay too many people that worship that damned thing.

"tv is solely for entertainment" .... mmmm ... point being that people also watch news and maybe even documentaries, stuff like that ... yea? Over here in Australia we even have edoocational stuff on da box.

Not so much over here. Our news is a joke. It is so slanted that it proves to be less than "news." However, that is a different discussion for a different thread. I can't speak on documentaries. See above.

Is the message "hard core" or "cauterization"?? Please at least agree that there is a message ... somewhere.

I don't think I ever said there isn't a message. Whatever the message is, it should be ignored. My statement was directly towards children taking a message away from the tv. I said, and apparently have to say again, that it is the parent's job to make sure the child understands that tv is largely a suspension of reality. As dougshoe said, the danger is that a lot of this garbage is being presented as fact. If a parent cannot help their child distinguish between tv and reality, we have a problem.

Does that clarify? It honestly appears as though we are talking past each other.

 

[dartanyon]

If a parent cannot help their child distinguish between tv and reality, we have a problem.

The problem being:
1. That if we don’t watch everything with our kids, television shows slip through sending the wrong message to those that don’t know any better ... especially kids.
2. There are people that actually believe the message these guys are communicating to be a worthwhile procedure.
3. That because these guys are even allowed to show their stuff, self mutilation is acceptable.

Do you think censorship is there for a reason?

No hidden meaning. Nothing a little basic English comprehension can't figure out. As far as tv is concerned, if you rely on that to send a message to your children, you are a complete failure at life and parenting and should not even have children.

I think you’re missing the basic psychology bit.

 

[dougo83]

The problem being:
1. That if we don’t watch everything with our kids, television shows slip through sending the wrong message to those that don’t know any better ... especially kids.
2. There are people that actually believe the message these guys are communicating to be a worthwhile procedure.
3. That because these guys are even allowed to show their stuff, self mutilation is acceptable.

Do you think censorship is there for a reason?


I think you’re missing the basic psychology bit.

I am tired and cannot seem to break this down into any simpler terms. With that said, I give up. You clearly aren't following what I am saying. Perhaps it is because this is not an effective medium to convey my thought, perhaps not. Either way...done.

 

[bored2deth]

Personally, I believe what he did was absolutely disgusting. Children likely watch that show, & hope that none emulate that behaviour. Jamming a knife into your arm & opening it up like a slab of meat is simply 'shock-effect'. Pouring black powder into a cut & setting it on fire..
oh..ok..that makes a whole lot of sense--what happens if it explodes? Ugh. Disgusting. He'd have been better off making a poultice after sliucing (cleaning, I can't spell the sliecing term
properly, & I don't mean slicing.) Eee=hee-heewww. Nasty. Seeing things like that make me grateful for the training I have reinforced with good, common sense.

B2D..

Darkwhispers..

SOG DOG 1..

 

[SouthernCross]

G'day Stabman

.....I suspect you know that though, and are just trying to make others look foolish as an attempt to bolster your credibility.

With closer to 8,000 post here, you should already know by now that this is not the approach that is taken by someone who is trying to bolster "their credibility" on any internet forum.

Afterall, when it comes to internet forum credibility, it seems to me that popularity is all too often confused with credibility




Kind regards
Mick

 

[tonym]

Afterall, when it comes to internet forum credibility, it seems to me that popularity is all too often confused with credibility

Kind regards
Mick

Hello Mick,

Before this thread gets closed, which it should have been allready since people like to discuss each other and not the topic, I would like to know who you are speaking of in that blanket statement.

Please provide the post they made in which they are pretending to be something they are not, I hate that sort of thing..

Good day,

Tony

 

[Brian Jones]

Yeah, this thread has run its course...