Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

I understand, but no one should be surprised when something like this happens. Animals, predators particularly, are violent. Animals like tigers, lions, bears and wolves should never be displayed for public amusement.

The main point is not that they should never be displayed. You can limit or stop their display in society, but you can never fully stop lower animals or beasts from being shown. This is because lower animals or beasts will always be displayed in the jungle. So the main point is this: If you choose to display lower animals and beasts within a society, then you should be aware of the risks which are inherent in such a venture. And if you are aware of such risks, then you should not try to place on someone or something else, all of the blame for the problems that may eventually follow from your decision. Everyone is free to do as they choose. But when you have chosen, and your consequences arrive, don’t try to heap all of the blame on someone or something else.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Did the tiger eat Sousa? No, it didn't.


It certainly looks like there is some evidence they may have.


Boy, now you really have me confused. I thought humans were evil, sinful creatures. Or do you know for a fact that Sousa and friends were in Christ? And if so, wouldn't you have to accept this as an act of God?


Here's the official version:

It is an act of God and it is an act of Man.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Look, if you get drunk, climb an electric tower, take a whiz and get electrocuted, would you blame the tower?

Yes. After all, less we forget, it takes two to tango. You are tangoing with the electric tower. Did you not learn that there are always two factors in a result or consequence? The tower and the drunk are both at fault.

 

[MindOverMatter]

All I have heard is speculation.

All I have heard is people trying to defend the tiger because they just "can't imagine" the tiger would attack anyone for no reason.

Well, since opportunity is a reason, then we would have to say that the tiger did attack for a reason. May not be an acceptable reason to you, but one nonetheless.

 

[cattyfan]

more perils of talking about yourself in the third person...you begin having conversations with yourself. :chuckle:

 

[MindOverMatter]

I defend the tigers for being tigers. But not people for being ignorant....

TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Well, that’s funny because how did the people become ignorant? Did they become ignorant by themselves or did they have help? Did the ignorant people make themselves? Why can’t you defend ignorant people for being ignorant people?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So the guy got drunk and started shooting sling bullets at a tiger? lain:

While I appreciate the fact that he had the decency to remove himself from the gene pool, I am a bit miffed that he had to put other people and animals in mortal danger.

First, the other animals and people were already in mortal danger.

Secondly, survival of the fittest is always a wonderful thing when you are the one that is still surviving.

 

[johana]

:think:

I guess it depends on where and how big the enclosures are, I saw a few in the UK when younger that just weren't big enough for a lot of the animals to have enough space, some of them were shut down as a result as it was latterly regarderd as cruelty towards animals, circuses have now been banned from using animals for similar reasons...

Our tigers are kept like this in enclosures over 2000 square meters at the regular Melbourne zoo. The lions have an acre.

Werribee zoo doesn't have tigers but the lions there have two connected enclosures at about 1800 and 2000 sq. m's each, not to mention ample hunting opportunities.

I'm probably biased given the company I work for designed the hippo exhibit at Werribee and my uncle did the orangutan, elephant and Australian exhibit at Melbourne zoo but I think the animals do alright here.

Edit: Our kangaroos are kept in a section but you walk around with them. I don't think I've ever seen a kangaroo in a cage is why I thought that was funny. And our koalas sit in trees. Why would you take them in when it rains? There's nothing cuter than a soggy koala...

 

[MindOverMatter]

No animal can do wrong OR right.
That's why it's called an animal.

Why is the animal dead? If according to you, “ No animal can do wrong OR right,” then why do we now have a dead tiger? Evidently somebody was of the mind that the did something wrong.

Secondly, are you of the mind that murder is not wrong or right?

From the same source:

"taunting can defintely make an animal more agressive."

True, so can opportunity.

 

[aikido7]

Opportunity is a trigger for lower animals, animals, beasts, and their kind.

Opportunity meaning the chance to start a small business or the opportunity to escape from a tsusami?

Opportunity can be provocative for some.

Can be.

Opportunity provokes or moves lower animals, beasts, and those of their kind to action. Don’t know why supposedly highly evolved and rational people have not come to see this. Don’t know why this information is hard for highly evolved and rational people to grasp.

I would say it's because most people have no desire to empathize with animals. And I can't blame them for that. Empathy is going to increasingly be a necessary virtue as time goes on but the Kingdom won't be built in a day.

Don’t you know that everything and everyone is on the endangered species list?

Good point.

There is no "anti-human agenda here." :rotfl: Oh you gotta love it! Don’t you know that there are some people who are closer to lower animals and beasts than humans. Haven’t you learned that there are some people who are closer to lower animals and beast than MAN.

Some tribes have what they call a "shaman." It is usually someone who is quite familiar with the animal world and can even communicate with animals on a different level. Have you ever seen the horse trainer who has been called the "Horse Wisperer"? He does an amazing job of just watching and listening to horses.

What are they teaching you all in your Science classes? You better check that Bible again. Every human, animal, beast and their kind, is generally closer to and feels more comfortable around their own.

Absolutely! Logic and reason have their limitations, especially the Western-type worldview. Science can only tell us so much. Questions about reality and the soul are dealt with by religions and their sacred literature.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So it does have at least one case of attacking. Like I said before, the bottom line is that we probably will never know exactly what happened. And while a tiger biting the arm of someone who is feeding it is far from jumping the fence and attacking people with no provocation are far from the same thing, animals are unpredictable and this particular one has attacked before so we shouldn't jump to put all the blame on the people.

Then how is the animal unpredictable? If the animal has attacked before and it is known for attacking, then how was its behavior unpredictable?

 

[MindOverMatter]

:duh: Hey retard who do you think your talking to?


Nobody is saying that taunting can't provoke an animal. What we are questioning is were these guys really taunting the animal or not? And if so, what were they doing? Did they help the animal out of the cage? If so, they deserve what they got, if not well then that's a different story altogether.

What is taunting to an animal? In all likelihood, everyone who was present in that zoo was taunting the tiger.

Right now it looks like everyone is really quick to smear the humans and justify the man-eating beast.

That is what it appears like.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The tiger was just doing what God made it to do-- eat the living snot out of everything that moves.

True, that is a function of the tiger. Now how about this one: The tiger was just doing what Man made it to do.

 

[Sweet Pea]

I have a question, particularly for those who are seeing this discussion as "smearing the humans". Why is there this "us vs them" mentality? Tigers are wild animals. No one can "justify" what the tiger did because no one knows WHY exactly she did it, and it needs no justification because it's a wild animal. Predators attack, it's what they do. What needs to be justified is the inadequate enclosure whereby the tiger could get out. Yes, the drunk doofuses did something stupid, and yes they bear some personal responsibility, but as someone pointed out, it could have been a small child or mentally handicapped person who really didn't know any better and the bottom line is that the tiger shouldn't have been able to escape.

I guess I just don't get this "justify the man eating beast" stuff. What's there to justify? House cats don't have to justify chasing and mauling and killing mice, it's what they do. I live in a house with a dog, a cat and a few gerbils. It is the responsibility of the HUMANS not to allow the gerbils to come into contact with the cat and the dog, because we're the ones who know better. Moral judgement, whatever you believe its source is, soul, brain, deity, whatever, is what sets us big-brained primates apart from the "lower" beasts, no?

~SP

 

[Sweet Pea]

Then how is the animal unpredictable? If the animal has attacked before and it is known for attacking, then how was its behavior unpredictable?

I have to agree with you here, MOM. If the tiger had attacked someone before, it should have been removed.

~SP

 

[koban]

I have to agree with you here, MOM. If the tiger had attacked someone before, it should have been removed.

~SP

Please SweetPea, don't feed the troll.

 

[eveningsky339]

True, that is a function of the tiger. Now how about this one: The tiger was just doing what Man made it to do.

The object of the lesson is:

Don't harm/taunt a 350 cat that was made to eat people. With A1 Steak Sauce.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If we ran an experiment where 100 zookeepers put their arms into a tigers cage while feeding them, I wonder how many of them would be nicknamed 'Stubby' afterwards? :think:

Don’t know, maybe just two or three. After all, according to everyone, tigers are pretty unpredictable. So if they are pretty unpredictable, then we can probably expect that many of those tigers will only lick and kiss some of those delicious meaty arms.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hey, devout Christian, who do you think you're talking to?

I said it doesn't matter a pitcher's worth of warm spit whether they taunted the animal or not. It's a wild animal.

Did that tiger-trainer in Las Vegas who was attacked onstage taunt his tiger? No. But it was a wild animal.

Actually they did taunt their tigers. Maybe they were not aware of it, but Siegfried and Roy had been taunting their tigers for many years.

Believe me, there was a good reason why the tiger attacked those people and killed one of them.

Well, if you believe that opportunity alone is a good rational ground or motive for doing something, then MOM guesses that you can say that the tiger had a good reason.

Secondly, whether you realize it or not, if you believe that the tiger had a good reason to attack, then you are a very dangerous person. Anybody who believes that opportunity alone is a good reason for doing something is a very dangerous person.

Realizing this fact, feeling sorry for the tiger or saying the people got what they deserved does not mean that animals are more important than people or that people have no rights. You just enjoy impersonating the oppressed.

Well, what does it mean? What does it say when a supposed human has more pity for something that is not even one of its own? What does it say when you as a “human,” feel more sorrow for one object than another? It’s actually not that hard to figure out. Humans generally feel more sorrow for that thing which is of greater importance. Generally losing a house is going to elicit more sorrow than losing a pair of shoes. And the reason being is because the house is of greater value or importance.

So, if we have people who are feeling more sorrow for a cat than another person, then that act alone speaks volumes. This is because it says two things:
First, it says that in some minds, the animal is now more important than the human.
Secondly, it says that some people have devolved. And as a result of that act of devolution, these individuals now have a closer kinship to lower animals and beasts than to humans.

 

[zoo22]

Secondly, whether you realize it or not, if you believe that the tiger had a good reason to attack, then you are a very dangerous person. Anybody who believes that opportunity alone is a good reason for doing something is a very dangerous person.

I find that ridiculous. If one believes that the tiger had a good reason to attack, then they are a very dangerous person? Please. Sure, if you apply it to humans interacting with humans, it's very dangerous to consider opportunity as a good reason. But it's absurd not to be able to separate and recognize the differences of an animals intent from a humans intent. Generally speaking, what may be a "reason" for an animal does not apply the same way to a human (vice versa, I suppose). Besides at base (eat, procreate, defend, etc). Moral reasoning simply doesn't apply to animals the same way, and any intelligent human would consider that. I would think.

On one paw, you separate animals and humans, and on the other paw, you lump reasoning of animals and humans together as comparable? Patooey.