Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[Sweet Pea]

So, if we can’t blame a tiger for its behavior, then we can’t blame or punish humans who because they are of the same mind as the tiger, behave in a manner that is similar. But yet, it is done. Humans who because of belief, behave as the tiger, are held responsible for their actions. And yet you want to absolve the tiger of any wrongdoing. Is MOM missing something here?



And so because humans erect zoos for their own entertainment, you believe that a tiger-- or for that matter any other wild animal-- should not be held responsible for killing a human?
Red, that is quite an interesting conclusion. Now you wouldn’t happen to be a secret member of ALF?

How on EARTH do you hold an ANIMAL responsible for its behavior? If my dog pees on the floor because I don't get home in time to walk him, I don't blame the dog, I blame the human who got held up at work.

Now, I'm not saying that the tiger should be "spared" because really, there is no practical solution except what was done. BUT, applying human moral standards to animals borders on ridiculous.

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don't know...I'm still getting over those evil fires vicious attack on innocent people around the San Diego area recently. I can't process any additional natural/moral implications just yet.

Always thought that fires were living things. Oh well, maybe MOM was wrong.

Psalms 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Secondly, all of those people in the San Diego area were not innocent. All of them were guilty of something. In fact, whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone is always guilty of something. A little something about dimensions, locations, positions, time, etc..

I wonder if we'll find out at some point that people were taunting the dry grass? :think:

That is always a possibility. Grass are living things aren’t they? Or was that science teacher wrong again? :kookoo:

Isaiah 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people [is] grass.

Psalms 102:11 My days [are] like a shadow that declineth; and I am withered like grass.

Luke 12:28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more [will he clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, there goes one old saying: sticks and stones may break my bones, but tigers will never maul me.

Never say never. You currently exist in a state where you are mauled by tigers. It just takes time and movement for you to go from this point to arrive at that location.

This is only a guess, but I'm thinking it might be time to change your "crazy" filter. I don't think you're getting enough intake at this point to operate efficiently.

Can’t you tell that MOM just changed it. Maybe the problem stems from the fact that you haven’t changed your filter. Why don’t you try changing your filter and see what happens. :rotfl:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Salmoni, obviously shaken by the taking of one of his own, would have rather had a huge predator cat running loose taking out as many humans as possible than have it downed immediately to protect the lives of other possible human victims.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty....

Why not, everyone relates to their own. Everyone would rather have their own running around. Humans relate to other humans of their kind. And lower animals and beasts relate to other lower animals and beasts of their kind. That is how life works. That is the LOB or the LAW of Birds in action.

So Salmoni is only rooting for his side. Hey, who can blame him: Everyone seeks to protect their own. Now the million dollar questions is: Who is really your own?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Seriously, find another board to annoy.

Actually what is really annoying is someone like you who doesn’t have a sound take. :wave2:

 

[zoo22]

Morality doesn't exist for animals? So lets see: The tiger escaped from it's containment and killed somebody; secondly, it mauled some people; thirdly, it is shot dead, and we conclude that “morality doesn’t exist for animals.”

Well, evidently some sort of morality exists for the tiger because it is now dead. Evidently someone is of the mind that morality exists for the tiger.

This why generally when I am confronted with a tiger, I try appeal to morals and reasoning.

Unfortunately, I can't speak tiger. Which is why I don't know if it works. Also, because I've never been confronted by a tiger.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There is either something deeply disturbed in your thought process, or you like being as weird and obscure as you can possibly be. :idea:

Oh yeah, MOM guesses that thinking and pointing out that lower animals have been placed on the same level as evolved humans is deeply disturbing. Yep, that is deeply disturbing. The fact that lower animals and beasts are supplanting evolved humans is actually more tranquil.

>>>>Dog Gone Rich #@%&#!

>>>> My Dog Trumps Your Humanity

>>>> The Chimp N Dales

>>>> Man With Beast


>>>> Human Vicktims



So Ktoyou, since Turbo is now pointing out what MOM has been saying for over a year, then you must think that his thought process is also deeply disturbing? Or does that only apply to when MOM points something out? :rotfl:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Turbo makes a good point. He is showing us an example of ‘animalism’ perhaps one of the most heinous sins, which has recently come again to plague us.

Huh, animalism? >>>Animalism

>>>Animality

1. Animalism: noun: : ANIMALITY

2. Animality: noun: 1 : a quality or nature associated with animals: a : VITALITY b : a natural unrestrained unreasoned response to physical drives or stimuli
2 : the animal nature of human beings

Animal worship is anytime we place animals before humans. We must learn to love each other first and not allow animals to be a substitute for human love properly directed.

Maybe you meant animism. >>>ANIMISM

Animism : noun: 1 : a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit2 : attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3 : belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies

Hmm, those definitions are quite interesting. Wonder why they sound so familiar. :think:

 

[MindOverMatter]

This thread is kind of frustrating because I feel like it is making a big issue out of a simple event.

Well you have to understand that this thread is not just the result of one event. MOM’s guess is that this is a result of events which have accumulated over the years.

Extreme measures called for when furry pals are loved like family members

Americans spend $40 billion on furry 'family members'

>>>Helmsley's Dog Gets $12 Million in Will

>>>Pet-Friendly Hotels

>>> Katrina Animals Latest

>>>Oregon lawmaker: Let's dine with dogs

>>>In D.C., a serene shelter for homeless pets


>>>Luxury Dog Houses


More pets dressed to chill for Halloween

It would be ignorant to brush over or make light of the tragedy of a young man losing his life.

Agreed, but many will. What is dead young man when a dead tiger is involved. Especially a dead Middle Easterner.

Continued...

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Continued

It is also stupid to condemn the animal as being "bad", "wicked", or a murderer.

Don’t know if you realized this or not, or whether you even care, but you just called the Holy Bible stupid.

Genesis 37:20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.

Genesis 37:33 And he knew it, and said, [It is] my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.

Leviticus 26:6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make [you] afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

Ezekiel 5:17 So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I the LORD have spoken [it].

Ezekiel 34:25 And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Knight, I don't think people have seriously tried to say that the death of the young man is no big deal, so why this aggressive tirade against the tiger?

No, they have not come right out and said it, but a lot of them are implying and surreptitiously insinuating through their actions and speech that the death of the tiger is a bigger deal than the death and mauling of the young men.

Do you hate animals? Not having sympathy or respect for animals is a sign of a defective character.

No, actually, having more sympathy or respect for lower animals is a sign of a defective character.

It is also a sign that one has devolved.

Animal life has value... The Bible says that the man that does not regard the life of his beast is a fool.

Actually, this is what the Bible says:

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel.

Now, does the Bible instruct that the man should have more regard for the life of his beast than he has for the life of his fellow MAN?

Secondly, how about the beast that does not regard the life of his master? What does the Bible say should be done to that animal?

Exodus 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

Exodus 21:31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

Higher Animals are not instinctively driven robots.

Key word being “Higher.” Unfortunately, all are not “Higher” Animals.

Human life is also guided and directed by instinct, yet we have the interior dimension and subjective experience known as consciousness.

So are you saying that “Higher” humans are guided by both instinct and consciousness? Or are you speaking of just humans in general?

I'm sure that animals have a conscious experience of life as well, although not the exactly the same as a human.

Isaiah 1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the *** his master's crib: [but] Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

I have seen fear in the eyes of an animal about to be killed, and I'm sure that fear felt like something.

Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Sshhhhhh. Don't tell MOM. :noid:

Don’t tell MOM what? Are you guys trying to have a party without inviting ole MOM? :wave2:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Understanding lower animal behavior sets a foundation for understanding human behavior.

Are you speaking of understanding “higher” human behavior? Or are you just talking about human behavior in general?

Humans have the most complex nervous system in nature. Therefore understanding the complexities of human behavior is, well more complex than understanding lower animals.

Again, are you speaking of “higher” human behavior as being more complex? Or are you speaking of human behavior in general?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Of course they are! Not their natural prey but they'll do...

It's amazing to watch how the big cats view my two year old son when I take the kids to the zoo. Instantly they're onto him, being the smallest and weakest in the group.

Dingos who would normally take down small wallabies are onto him like white on rice.

Animals follow him from behind the glass. (We have glass here many times rather than bars or mesh. No finger incidents)

First and foremost the zoo is to blame for placing the tiger in an enclosure insufficient to the task of containing him.

Now, before this present occurrence, how many times had the tiger escaped from that enclosure?

If the boys had aided the tigers escape, there's not a lot the zoo could have done to predict or prevent that but meeting or exceeding the requirements would have meant they'd done everything in their power.

So, you are of the mind that there was nothing that the zoo could have done to prevent someone from helping the tiger escape? MOM can actually think of a couple of things.

Secondly, what was not predictable? So with the increase of PETA fanatics and their allies, do you mean to tell MOM that no one at the zoo had ever considered that one day some maniac or maniacs from an “animal liberation” group, would try to release one or some of their animals? :rotfl: Oh, this is too good. It is always interesting to watch devolved minds in actions. :rotfl:

Animal Liberation Front


ALF Rescues 1,000 Mice & 18 Primates in Italy

Animal Activists Claim Theft, but Farm Finds No Missing Hens

Canadian gets 37 months in ecoterror arsons

The boys who taunted the tiger are idiots.

And so are all those who are of the belief that this was unpredictable.

Not idiots who deserved to die but idiots none the less. I don't feel too much sympathy for people who do particularly stupid things such as jump out of planes without parachutes, cuddle grizzlies or poke big dogs with sticks but in this situation the boys had a reasonable expectation that the tiger was trapped and wouldn't be able to get out. Had they aided it's escape, they really have no one to blame but themselves but otherwise they were just nitwits who paid dearly for their idiocy.

And so Johana, judging from your previous stance, it appears that you are one who has selective sympathy for selective law breakers? :rotfl: You are one who likes to feel sympathy for those who are punished for doing stupid things and breaking the Laws that you do not really approve of. But when it comes to those who are punished for doing stupid things and breaking the Laws that you do approve of, you do not feel too much sympathy. How does that work? How is that for being equal?

The tiger was being a tiger. They do things like that. Apex predators tend to.

The boys were being boys. They do things like that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

:chuckle: taunting them with matches, perhaps?

Possibly. Or maybe they were taunting them with people and houses.

It really is the grasses fault though.

Partly. Just imagine, if there were no grass of trees, then there would not have been any wildfires. Come to think of it, MOM has never seen the sand on the beach catch on fire.

Should have thought better of catching on fire and possibly injuring folk...

Or maybe the people should have thought better and not built in those areas. Or maybe they should have been better prepared. Whoever heard of foresight and being prepared? :rain:

Anyone who thinks differently clearly hates people, loves grass and should be referred to in a group ending in -ists... Grassists? Floraists? :think:

They should, if they are more worried about the burnt grass then they are the people who lost their lives.

 

[MindOverMatter]

:rotfl:

Who knows what the grass was thinking, but it was certainly wrong to cause harm to humans.

If they did think, they would probably reason: “We are going to cause these people a lot of hell and grief for ignoring us and building in this area.” :devil: ))) Burn baby burn!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Praying in the street is a horrible idea, just like playing in the street or taunting tigers, and is likely to get you killed.

But do you advocate purposely killing someone just because they are praying in the street? Now that is the big question.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Where did Koban say it is ok to kill people in the street for praying?

Really don’t know, MOM was just replying to a posting by Mr. Knight. MOM is trusting that Mr. Knight wouldn’t make such a statement unless it was true.

I don't think you are loony.

Well thank you.

I don't understand your points all the time, but that might be my fault.

That is a good possibility.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Mindless is reacting to an oversimplification made by Knight of a statement I made that basically said that bringing the abortion fight to the home of the contractor building the clinic was counterproductive and that if protesters, regardless of their cause, were picketing in my neighborhood, they'd better step lively, as I would not be inclined to slow down or swerve.

So, you would murder someone for praying in the street. It is true after all. Very interesting. And you have the nerve to talk about MOM. :rotfl: Gotta love it! :wave2:

 

[MindOverMatter]

:noway:

I'm shocked MOM! Don't you advocate a position of keeping ones nose out of other countries business?!?!

Maybe you need to read what MOM posted again within the context of the discussion. So lets start from the beginning: First there was a posting from Mr. Knight>>> Knight’s POST # 33

:chuckle:

It wont be too long before eating animals will be a capital crime.

And in response to that posting MOM replied in POST # 178

Isn’t it already a crime in some places? Let the people starve but don’t you dare touch that animal. We are headed that way. No more :spam: for you guys.

Holy cow issue divides Hindus

Contrary to what you are trying to imply, MOM is not trying to stick her nose into another country’s business. After all, that is a job which you have already taken. Instead, what MOM did was use another country’s business as a point of reference. This is because MOM wanted to show that there is a country where eating animals or a certain animal is against the Law. And MOM does not want this country to become like that one.

Now in your haste to try to insinuate that MOM is trying to stick her nose into another country’s business, here is what you failed to take note of: You see, unlike you -- who for the purpose of control and change--is dismissive of, and is more than willing to interfere with the Laws of other sovereign nations-- MOM did not call those Laws unjust, backwards, illegitimate and wrong. MOM is not trying and does not wish to interfere with or change that Law. MOM respects the right of the Hindu nation to restrict their people from eating animals or a certain animal. MOM respects the right of sovereign nations to starve their people if they so choose. It is after all their people and their future. So MOM does not see them or their LAW as unjust or wicked. It is just the way of life that they have chosen, and it is their business. But at the same time, MOM does not want her country to move down that path.

So, unlike you who wants to re-make the world in your own image, MOM was only using the Hindus act of not eating cows as a point of reference. MOM does not want to force them to eat cows. If they choose that the cows should live while their people starve, so be it. That is their country and their LAW. They are not trying to push US not to eat any cows. Maybe one day you will evolve to understand that just because you can, does not always mean that you should.

PS. Nice try but MOM is always consistent.

Or does that odd courtesy only extend to Saudi Arabia?

Applies to all countries that are not directly attacking US.

*insert countless links to posts from other thread*
*throw in a few random dictionary definitions to random words like "and" and "starve"*

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

 

[Sweet Pea]

Oh yeah, MOM guesses that thinking and pointing out that lower animals have been placed on the same level as evolved humans is deeply disturbing. Yep, that is deeply disturbing. The fact that lower animals and beasts are supplanting evolved humans is actually more tranquil.

So Ktoyou, since Turbo is now pointing out what MOM has been saying for over a year, then you must think that his thought process is also deeply disturbing? Or does that only apply to when MOM points something out? :rotfl:

MOM, no one (except for some extremists like the PETA folks) is "placing lower animals on the same level as evolved humans". It is precisely BECAUSE we do not place them on the same level that we cannot expect them to conform to our standards of what is right, fair, or moral. It is BECAUSE I do not place them on the same level that I cannot "lay blame" on the tiger. The zoo should have had an enclosure that couldn't be escaped from, and the drunken morons shouldn't have messed with the animal. THOSE are things that could have been foreseen to be problems. The tiger, unequipped with the foresight we humans have as a result of our big brains, would not have been able to discern that its behavior would be a problem. To me, the lesser capabilities of less-evolved animals means we have to take some degree of responsibility FOR them, particularly if we're going to keep them as pets, zoo exhibits, and helpers.

~SP