Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

Hijacking this thread to theology, I say yes. God is in control and things happen here because of him--even when we don't yet understand why.

True, now the trick is figuring out who or what God is and how he controls.

My usual arrogant and glib response: Only by transforming ourselves will the world be transformed.

True, everything generally starts and ends with Man.

Plus it might help to have leadership in America that will tell us the real truth and inspire us to work together (and I don't mean Barack Obama (necessarily)

Well, hate to break it to you but those days are long gone and never to be seen again in this reality.

Yes. I don't really know. Maybe yes, but....

Oh yes, you become a victim whenever you are forced to do something that is contrary to your own interests or beliefs. Examine the definition: >>> Victim

VICTIM: noun: 1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent *the schools are victims of the social system*: as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions *a victim of cancer* *a victim of the auto crash* *a murder victim* (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment *a frequent victim of political attacks* b : one that is tricked or duped *a con man's victim*

 

[MindOverMatter]

According to the news reports that have come out since the incident, the cage was not properly built.

Well, was anyone aware of this fact? Or did this incident bring that fact to light?

Secondly, why would the zoo improperly build a tiger cage? Did they not have enough money to build the cage? What do they have to gain from doing such a thing?

It is the zoos responsibility to make sure their cages conform to whatever requirements are deemed the industry standard.

Hey, that’s true. What if the industry standards are off?

I have thought about leaving you stranded in the middle of a tiger infested jungle, yes.

Anywhere but a Koban infested jungle. Nothing more dangerous than being surrounded by a jungle full of ignorant devolved subhumans. :wave2:

 

[lightbringer]

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

How many times has this occurred? Is this your idea of how industry standards are set? By the number of times a tiger has scaled the wall?

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

Apply that same logic to the Tiger, now why destroy the animal for doing what it does naturally?

Secondly, why would the zoo improperly build a tiger cage?

How about, the unprofessional conduct of those supervising the construction.

Hey, that’s true. What if the industry standards are off?

If the standards are off there would be more incidents of this type. Since, boys will do as boys will do!

 

[MindOverMatter]

I find it fun to completely ignore MOM and just watch him/her/it spin as he/she/it gets more and more frantic for someone to respond. (Not that I could answer, anyway, since I'm not fluent in Crazy.)

MOM finds it more fun for you to ignore her. In case you haven’t noticed, MOM really doesn’t care whether you respond or not. The last time that MOM checked it is up to you to defend your positions when they come under question or attack in a debate forum. Not being able to defend them when they come under question or attack only succeeds in making you look insufficient. And this especially rings true after people closely examine the retort of the person that you are failing to respond to.

Secondly, MOM may be fluent in CRAZY but she is not skilled in IGNORANT. So, since that is the case, she probably wouldn’t be able to understand you either. Therefore, if you don’t mind, it is probably best that you don’t respond. We both are speaking different languages.

Haven't you noticed MOM has a problem with almost every single response and poster on this thread?

Oh yep, being unbiased and objective is really a big problem nowadays. Not being all emotional and subjective is really a big problem in this day. Not being moved by subjective emotion can be very problematic for those who love to control and keep people in darkness. Objectively pointing out the inconsistencies that may appear in both sides of an argument does tend to be seen as problem in today’s world. MOM almost forgot how that is supposed to work. How does it go again: Choose your side and whether what your group says is reasonable or not, just agree, shut up, and tow the line. Just ignore everything else that says otherwise and squeeze that line. Don’t think and definitely don’t examine any unfavorable evidence that might negate any of your stated assumptions. Just close your eyes and continue to remain in that state of blissful ignorance.

Yep, MOM definitely has a problem because she just doesn’t operate like a subjective sheep who is easily fleeced and slaughtered. This old bird didn’t make it this far by behaving like an ostrich who hides its head in the ground for the purpose of ignoring reality.

Deuteronomy 17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left: to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Deuteronomy 28:14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Joshua 1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it [to] the right hand or [to] the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

Joshua 23:6 Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom [to] the right hand or [to] the left;

 

[MindOverMatter]

Fixed.

Should have known. No wonder you and Koban are such good friends: you all have the same stinking problem. You know they say that birds of a feather, flock together. But in your case it is probably best said that birds with no feathers, flock together.

Now, MOM is going to give you the same advice that she gave Koban in the thread Primary Erationals: We don’t need to know about your personal business. Keep your castration between you and Koban. We don’t need to hear about your impotence. :wave2:

 

[MindOverMatter]

The tiger could only be 'at fault' in the eyes of those who like to anthropomorthise human characteristics onto animals :doh:

So, since you yourself have anthropomorphized the tiger, then this must mean that you likewise believe that the tiger is also at fault?

Red anthropomorphizing the tiger in Post # 110

That being said the tiger is innocent no matter how the scenario played out, it's a wild animal and can't be held to some set of moral values regardless......

 

[MindOverMatter]

MOM...I will indulge you this one last time, then put you back on ignore.

Please, you answering does not indulge MOM. Feel free not to answer. In case you haven’t noticed, it makes no difference to MOM whether you answer or not. You answering does not complete or make MOM’s day. On the other hand, if you are going to reply with what you have proceeded to answer, then you not answering would actually be quite more enjoyable.

Something can behave in more than one way, and each of the responses still be considered normal.

This is partly true if you are only referring to an individual’s established actions and behaviors or patterns as a whole.

Secondly, not if the response deviates from what has been discovered or established as the most usual or expected way or ways of behaving in a given situation. Just because a person or object may behave in more than one way, does not automatically mean that when placed in a specific situation, each behavior or action can be considered as normal for that individual.

For example: Dogs are able to eat meat and drink milk. But when given the choice, most dogs will choose meat over milk. This means that the act of choosing to eat meat over drinking milk is established and therefore considered to be a normal or regular action and behavior of the majority of dogs. And so just because all dogs can drink milk does not automatically make the drinking of milk to be their normal or regular action and behavior.

Now, while choosing to eat meat is considered to be a normal action or behavior of the majority of dogs, you will actually find a dog that normally or regularly chooses to drink milk. This act of choosing to drink milk over eating meat can be established and therefore can be considered to be the normal action or behavior of that dog. In other words, when given a choice between eating meat and drinking milk, this dog normally or regularly chooses to drink milk. Therefore, this dog’s normal is not what has been established as the normal for the majority of dogs that are in that situation. This dog which chooses to drink milk over eating meat is what you would call an anomaly.

So just because a dog is able to drink milk and eat meat, does not automatically mean that both actions and behaviors are normal. When placed within the context of a situation, those actions can become not normal or abnormal.


Continued...

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Continued

For example, here at TOL, a new poster (unfamiliar with you and therefore actually paying attention to you) can see one of your ravings and can either A.) waste time by attempting to answer you with reason, B.) ignore you, or C.) respond that you are crazy. Any of the reactions are within normal responses, but you can't predict which of these responses you may get (making it "unpredictable.")

Are all of those all of your normal responses? And how about we add a D.) Agree. Isn’t that a normal response. Well maybe not for you, but in case you are not aware that is a normal response for some people.

Secondly, who was your Science teacher? :rotfl:

Thirdly, you are ignoring the fact that in a debate forum --as well as in the world--you are dealing with many different types or kinds of minds. Everyone is of a specific view or opinion and is therefore not in the same frame of mind. And because this is the case, each person in this forum--as well as in the world-- will fall into one of those 4 categories. And so what this means is this:
1. You may have some who are of your mind. And because they are of your mind, they will see MOM’s views as ravings and they will ignore me.
2. You may have some who are of your mind. And because they are of your mind, they will see MOM’s views as ravings and they will respond by calling MOM crazy.
3. You may have some who are of a different mind. And because they are of that mind, these may attempt to answer or debate.
4. You may have some who are of the same mind. And because these are of the same mind, they will see and agree.

Now, what you have failed to realize is the fact that just because all of these responses may be normal, does not mean that they are normal responses for everyone. For example: Let’s say that you have three groups of normal animals: a set of dogs, cats, and parrots or macaws. If you place a bowl of meat and a bowl of milk in front of any one of these hungry animals, the regular response for most normal dogs will be to go for the meat first. For most cats, the regular response may be to go for the milk first. For most parrots or macaws, the regular response may be to ignore both.

As you may see, because they are generally of different views or opinions, the normal response for the dogs will not be the same as the normal response for the cats. And the normal response of the parrots will not be the same as the normal response of the cats and dogs. Therefore, just because all of the responses are normal, does not mean that they are normal for all of the animals that were in that situation.

Now, what does this mean or what does this tell US? Well it tells US that you are false when you say, “…you can't predict which of these responses you may get (making it "unpredictable.").” That’s right, with the use of observation, experience and scientific reasoning, you can predict which is the most likely response of each person. This is because when placed within a certain environment, each person or kind has their own normal way of responding to that situation.

So, Mrs. Catty, you don’t look at what is normal for the board as a whole. Instead by looking at what is the normal for each person, you can predict their response.

Finally, thanks to you Mrs. Catty we have know arrived at another feature that separates highly evolved humans from lower animals and beasts: The ability to predict. With the use of observation, experience, or scientific reason, highly evolved humans are able to accurately predict or forecast the coming of future events. On the other hand, for the most part lower animals and beasts are in essence blind and therefore do not to use observation, experience, or scientific reason to predict or forecast.


Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There is no need to anthropomorphize, it's pretty obvious the tiger escaped and killed a human, he didn't need any human characteristics to do so.

If it didn’t need human characteristics to kill someone, then the tiger couldn’t have possibly accomplished its act. Billybob, in case you are not aware, you need human characteristics to escape and kill. In fact, the last time that MOM checked, escaping and killing are human characteristics.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Then there's no need for any talk of 'defending' this tiger for something that would only be immoral if it was capable of human moralistic thought

Then why was the tiger killed?

So are you saying that without the evidence that a perpetrator is capable of “human moralistic thought,” then that individual’s actions cannot be deemed as immoral? In other words, an immoral action ceases to be such when the perpetrator appears to have no morals, or appears to be incapable of having “human moralistic thought?”

When did the act of labeling something as immoral become solely dependent on the moralistic thought of the perpetrator?

Oh, and please don't turn into the spelling police on me BB, in the UK we often use S as oppose to Z nowadays, and it hardly makes much difference one way or another.....

Used to know a guy who always used to use an S as opposed to Z. Always wondered what ever became of him.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I'm not defending the dead tiger or the dead drunk muslim with a slingshot.

You are defending the tiger if you believe that it should not be held partly responsible for its actions.

And I'm not anthropomorphizing the tiger, either. Higher mammals are not simple emotionless automatons.

You mean like the higher mammals in New Hampshire? >>>Primary Erationals :rotfl:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Too bad about the Tiger. But the fact remains. If these guys got drunk and taunted the tiger until it attacked them, I don't have much sympathy for them. Stupidity is one thing; cruelty to animals is quite another.

So, you consider waving at an animal to be so cruel that is worthy of death? Now that is quite interesting. So one would presume that Barbarians believe in killing those who wave at their animals?

Given that people who kill and torture other people often have a history of mistreating animals, the tiger might have even done a service to the rest of us.

This has already been proven false in history. It is actually the opposite: People who treat lower animals better than humans have a far greater chance of killing and torturing far more people than those who are said to have “mistreated” them.

 

[MindOverMatter]

(("Do you know how hard it is to procure more rights for your clients if they are going around mindlessly killing people? So right now the animal rights activists and their cohorts are in the middle of damage control. Gotta boost the image of those lower animals. Can’t let this little incident destroy that image. You can see them all in the thread placing all the blame on the human while defending the tiger. Hey, who can blame them? After all, that is their job. That is what they were born to do."))

The tiger was mindfully killing people. lain:

Just because something is mindless does not mean that it is not mindful.

Which seeing as we feel it is ok to kill critters of other species for fun, would very much be a double standard if we are outraged at it.

(leopard hunting for example. I recently saw a magazine with two men proudly posing over the carcass of a leopard they had bagged on their hunting safari. They had to wait in a groundblind at the waterhole all day for it.)

Killing for fun? What intelligent being in their right mind kills just for fun? Isn’t that considered murder? Isn’t that what lower animals and beasts do? You cannot be speaking of highly developed humans.

Just a thought... If you go bear hunting and end up getting mauled, it's fair wouldn't you say?

Yes it is. Survival of the fittest at work.

You wouldn't say the man was victimized, because every animal has a natural right to defend its life.

Doesn’t matter that every animal has a natural right to defend its life, the man is still a victim.

(Gotta boost the image of those lower animals.)

That is your goal if you are PETA and ALF.

Nobody intelligent thinks they need to boost the image of a tiger by making it out to be a cuddly pet or a respectable citizen.

Whoever said that the people of PETA and ALF were highly intelligent?

Every species, no matter how fierce or lowly (there is an endangered turtle where I live that only exists in a few square miles), has a right to exist.

That is if Man allows it to exist.

Secondly, tell that to all the diseases that Man is trying to eradicate. Do you believe that every disease has a right to exist? If not, why? Why aren’t you a strong proponent of disease rights?

We shouldn't feel like we have a right to take up all of their habitat, even if it is to our economic advantage to put a shopping center in that field.

We shouldn’t but we do?

Secondly, who is to say that the shopping center is really more of an economic advantage? Economic advantage is not just limited to shopping centers and consuming resources.

The destruction of other species is an extreme disservice to ourselves.

Many would say that that depends on what species you are referring to.

Continuing...

 

[0000]

Dave Salmoni of Animal Planet, a "large predator expert," feels sorry for the zoo keepers who "lost basically a family member," and says that "obviously, the biggest victim... is the tiger who got killed."

Co-host Juliet interrupted with mild sarcasm toward Salmoni , "The person that got killed was a pretty big victim, too."

Up until she said that, Salmoni didn't even acknowledge that a person was killed, and had only mentioned the people who had been mauled in passing between his points about the suffering zoo keepers and the tiger being the "biggest victim."

:baby: Tigers, alligators and sharks are quite gentle in the proper environments, like fluffy, stuffy playthings for little children to hug;

whereas mean, bad human beings may be the most violent of creatures within the animal kingdom with their malicious guns and bombs. :CRASH:

It's those bad police officers who should be locked up in the zoo. Let the tigers run free.

Agoo to you.

 

[MindOverMatter]

...Continued

To destroy the environment is to kill ourselves on the inside, for man is holistically the pinnacle of the natural world. It is the squandering our natural heritage like the foolish prodigal son with his wealth.

True. But who cares, gotta make sure that economy stays strong. And now we arrive at another feature that separates highly evolved humans from lower animals and beasts: The ability to be fully aware of the effects of ones actions on the environment. And as a result of that awareness, the movement to commit actions which are geared to the maintenance and support of that environment. Lower animals and beasts are not fully aware of the effects of their actions on the environment.

We are stealing from our children and their children.

Who cares about our children’s children. It is all about me, I, and today. Who cares about tomorrow anymore? What are you some sort of weirdo? Please don’t come in here talking about the future. Only rational and intelligent humans are aware and concerned about how their current actions will affect their off springs in the future.

Many Native Americans had a rule when the council was making a decision, to consider not just the immediate impact on themselves, but to consider the impact it would have on their descendants 7 generations in the future.

Ahh, what did they know. What are you some sort of loony? :kookoo: Why should we worry about future generations? We want it all now! :TomO:

As a young person, I feel a heavy pressing guilt at the thoughtless destruction my kind has perpetrated on the most dazzlingly beautiful thing, our own planet. it's no surprise to me that suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers.

Who cares about the planet, it is all about the booming consumer economy. Who cares that there will be no economy if there no earth? Who cares that if the earth dies, then those who are on it will also die? :grave: Its all about the economy baby! Just go ahead sit back, consume and enjoy yourself. Be like the grasshopper and ignore tomorrow today. No need to think like the ant and work today for tomorrow.

Is "civilization" as we know it today, really an advance?

Well, since you are always advancing towards something, MOM would have to say yes. Everything is always an advance. So the questions is not really about whether civilization is advancing or not. Instead, the better questions is, what is civilization advancing towards?

Although we are more clever technologically, is it possible we are incredibly more stupid, and selfish, and unconscious?

Or more like lower animals and beasts. Maybe many of US are sorta like lower animals and beasts with advanced technology and weaponry.

Maybe simple is better.

Um, what is wrong with you? Are you sick?:kookoo: Do you mean to tell MOM that you don’t want the big gas guzzling SUVs, the five houses, the swimming pools, the Mcdonalds, the fat and obese backside, the failing infrastructure, and all of the other things that go along with over consumption ? Are you sure that you are feeling well?

I'm not saying that technological and societal development is wrong, but to proceed to blitz the world with our machines, buildings, and ravenous pillaging of natural resources just to fuel our economic growth, with no consideration of the longterm repercussions of our actions is.

You are definitely loony and mad. What are you raving about? There is nothing bad with blitzing the world with our machines, buildings, and ravenous pillaging of natural resources just to fuel our economic growth, with no consideration of the longterm repercussions of our actions. What are you some sort of no good Commie?

No wonder we find ourselves complaining about our materialistic, spiritually dead world.

Nope, you are wrong. It is because we haven’t consumed enough. We need more to consume. :TomO: ))) More, more, more! Give US More! Give US more to eat. Feed me! We want to eat it all! :rotfl:

 

[lightbringer]

If it didn’t need human characteristics to kill someone, then the tiger couldn’t have possibly accomplished its act. Billybob, in case you are not aware, you need human characteristics to escape and kill. In fact, the last time that MOM checked, escaping and killing are human characteristics.

Killing is not a characteristic of humans alone, but it is in the sense of the word or language used by humans. An animal will kill in order to defend itself from an act of aggression, to feed itself, and in some instances to insure that its offspring will be the survivors of the pride and at times for no specific reason discernible to man. All natural to some specific animals.

Escaping is viewed in the same way, an animal that is of the type to have an expanded territory, will if confined, depart that enclosure if given the opportunity or necessary stimuli to do so. A natural response.

Nature is chaotic and its creatures are driven by survival instincts, including man.

 

[red77]

Then why was the tiger killed?

So are you saying that without the evidence that a perpetrator is capable of “human moralistic thought,” then that individual’s actions cannot be deemed as immoral? In other words, an immoral action ceases to be such when the perpetrator appears to have no morals, or appears to be incapable of having “human moralistic thought?”

When did the act of labeling something as immoral become solely dependent on the moralistic thought of the perpetrator?



Used to know a guy who always used to use an S as opposed to Z. Always wondered what ever became of him.

The evidence is already there, it's an animal :duh: morality is irrelevant...

The next thing you'll be telling us is that spiders philosophise over the moral implications of biting someone......

 

[red77]

So, since you yourself have anthropomorphized the tiger, then this must mean that you likewise believe that the tiger is also at fault?

Red anthropomorphizing the tiger in Post # 110

:liberals:

Saying that a wild animal cannot be held morally accountable for it's instincts is not anthropomorphising it...

 

[0000]

Why did the big bad police kill the fluffy wuffy? Is it because the fluffy wuffy bit the meany weany? The meany weany taunted the fluffy wuffy. That's why the fluffy wuffy bit the meany weany.

The fluffy wuffy had feelings. And rights too. But the meany weany was just a heartless meany weany who forfeited his rights.

 

[MindOverMatter]

:doh: Don't get her started on that "my-boys-tortured-animals-and-good-for-them" path again. It's painful.

Just watching you argue is excruciatingly painful. Maybe they should make it a form of capital punishment? Maybe all murderers must sit down for the rest of their life and listen to Johana trying to argue.