Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[noguru]

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......

Or discuss the art of web making.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Actually, one of them had assaulted a police officer before.

And you are saying this to say what Zoo? What does this have to do with the tiger assaulting them?

 

[MindOverMatter]

animals aren't subject to any moral laws at all, period, therefore the tiger doesn't need to be defended for anything it did....

They aren’t? Then why aren’t lower animals allowed to sleep with humans? Why are animals not allowed to marry humans?

Why was the tiger killed?

Why are animals put down when they attack humans?

Again Red, before you continue to place foot in mouth, MOM will kindly advise you to go and study the definition of moral. >>>MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*

Yes, what a surprise, BB has a go at blacks yet again :yawn:

MOM has heard it said once before, “Once you go black you will never want to go back. ” Maybe Billy has had a go at blacks one too many times and now he doesn’t want to go back. :rotfl:

I don't need an excuse, surprisingly enough "English" actually stems from - ooh - lets think, England! and as such it's not illiterate to spell words such as organise with an 's', but if you wanna be captain pedantic then hey, knock yurself out....

That’s always funny to see the child trying to tell the mother how to do that which originally came from the mother. That seems to be one of our biggest problems: We have only been on the world stage for a brief period of time but we want to tell everyone who has been here for a much longer span of time, how they should live and run their lives. That seems a bit arrogant if you ask MOM.

England originated the language of English and now we want to tell them that the way that they use it is wrong. :rotfl: You gotta love it: The ignorance of arrogance.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Getting back to the topic--Taunt people--NOT animals!

How about we taunt neither?

Tigers are wild animals. Teasing and taunting them will almost certainly result in trouble.

So will teasing and taunting many humans.

Just because serial killers and school shooters were supposedly teased and taunted by others, does not excuse their behavior.

Then why do we have people trying to excuse the behavior of the tiger?

But people are different and should be able to handle such things.

The problem is not that some people are able to handle such things. Instead, the problem lies in the fact that all people are not able to handle such things.

 

[lightbringer]

They aren’t? Then why aren’t lower animals allowed to sleep with humans? Why are animals not allowed to marry humans?

Why was the tiger killed?

Why are animals put down when they attack humans?

Again Red, before you continue to place foot in mouth, MOM will kindly advise you to go and study the definition of moral. >>>MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*

You are actually attempting to apply a human principal to an animal?:darwinsm:

You must be smoking some wild stuff! :chuckle:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Absolutely ... it makes no sense to expect even a domestic animal to have manners and be civilized

Then why do many people have those expectations? Why do many people treat domestic animals as if they are civilized?

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

IF taunted ... it makes less sense to expect such a standard of wild animals.

But many people do. Why?

They aren't evil ... it's in their nature.

And so, are you saying that as a result of nature, certain actions cannot and should not be classified as evil?

 

[Rusha]

And so, are you saying that as a result of nature, certain actions cannot and should not be classified as evil?

When dealing with wild animals, yes ... evil is not the word I would use. Just because I don't believe the animal was necessarily evil doesn't make it any less dangerous. It acted like what it was ... a wild animal.

Rabid dogs aren't evil either, however, that doesn't mean they don't need to be put down.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Thanks Sozo, I suspected that it was something like that. The tiger probably felt threatened and was agitated by their antics. .

Since it has been noted that at least 20 -25% of the people who visit zoos taunt and yell at the animals, then we must conclude that the tiger was probably in a constant state of agitation. This is because in all likelihood, these guys would not have been the first to yell and wave at the tiger?

>>>>Experts: Taunts Not Only Factor In SF Tiger Attack

 

[MindOverMatter]

So to eliminate the perceived threat she attacked them.

So what is a perceived threat? Considering the fact that Man and tigers are natural enemies, and that it was Man who kept the tiger imprisoned, wouldn’t you say that the tiger perceived every person as a threat? And so if that is the case, then when given the opportunity, that perception would also have led the tiger to attack those who were not waving and yelling at it ?

Then once she was out of the containment she attacked other nearby.

Or once the opportunity became available she attacked others nearby.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I haven't read this thread, but to me it seems that the zoo is fully to blame.

That is a strong possibility.

No one knows when the tiger might have reacted like this, and it's their responsibilty to keep it contained.

Well everyone should have known when the tiger would have reacted like that. How about when it got out of its containment area. Did anybody ever think about that?

It's impossible to know what a tiger is thinking,

Well you can bet that it wasn’t thinking about getting out and giving all of those who were at the zoo hugs, kisses and flowers. :hetro:

Secondly, we do know what the tiger is thinking and that is why it was kept in a containment area.

and could have been just as irritated by a crying baby in a stroller.

True, and it might have been.

 

[red77]

They aren’t? Then why aren’t lower animals allowed to sleep with humans? Why are animals not allowed to marry humans?

Why was the tiger killed?

Why are animals put down when they attack humans?

Again Red, before you continue to place foot in mouth, MOM will kindly advise you to go and study the definition of moral. >>>MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*



MOM has heard it said once before, “Once you go black you will never want to go back. ” Maybe Billy has had a go at blacks one too many times and now he doesn’t want to go back. :rotfl:



That’s always funny to see the child trying to tell the mother how to do that which originally came from the mother. That seems to be one of our biggest problems: We have only been on the world stage for a brief period of time but we want to tell everyone who has been here for a much longer span of time, how they should live and run their lives. That seems a bit arrogant if you ask MOM.

England originated the language of English and now we want to tell them that the way that they use it is wrong. :rotfl: You gotta love it: The ignorance of arrogance.

To be honest, you can just forget it MOM, it takes no brain to work out that an animal or insect, flower or plant is not subject to laws of morality that men put in place for themselves,

MOM can kindly go about her business as well and speak in the third person as long as she wishes no matter how pointless and actually counter productive it's already proven to be.....

What really, did you hope to accomplish with that? From any side of the political spectrum? :idunno:

 

[red77]

Or discuss the art of web making.

Or possibly even both!

 

[Caille]

Wow!

Twenty-five pages of.... what? Nonsense? Bottom line? The zoo had a responsibililty to keep the tiger from getting out and attacking visitors. It failed. The zoo also had a responsibility to keep visitors from pestering the animals. It failed. The visitors had a responsibility to respect the animals. They failed.

The animal had a responsibility to act like an animal. It succeeded. And was put to death for doing what it is expected to do.

I'd say the tiger is the biggest victim, based just on that.

And I am a close second, for wading through twenty-five pages of nonsense.

 

[Rusha]

Wow!

Twenty-five pages of.... what? Nonsense? Bottom line? The zoo had a responsibililty to keep the tiger from getting out and attacking visitors. It failed. The zoo also had a responsibility to keep visitors from pestering the animals. It failed. The visitors had a responsibility to respect the animals. They failed.

The animal had a responsibility to act like an animal. It succeeded. And was put to death for doing what it is expected to do.

I'd say the tiger is the biggest victim, based just on that.

And I am a close second, for wading through twenty-five pages of nonsense.

:thumb:

 

[Sweet Pea]

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.

You didn't really say that, MOM, did you? :jawdrop:

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, the Zoo was obviously negligent. Since the tiger did escape from its containment.

Not necessarily true. The tiger could have been an anomaly. That is always a possibility.

At a zoo there is the expectation that the animals will be contained so as not to bring any physical harm to the customers.

True. But your expectations and reality may not be on the same page. And do you know what happens when that occurs?

The negligence of the teenagers is irrelevant in a liability suit.

How were the teenagers negligent? And if they were considered negligent, why would it be irrelevant in a liability suit?

The negligence of the zoo may even be criminal.
Negligence can be a criminal offense. I think it is called depraved indifference. If it can be shown that the zoo should have known (or did know) the risks involved with what they used for containment of the tiger, that is criminal negligence.

Or that the animal had attacked in the past.

Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
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.

 

[Caille]

Not necessarily true. The tiger could have been an anomaly. That is always a possibility.

Anomaly or not, the zoo's responsibility was to keep the exhibits from eating the visitors.

True. But your expectations and reality may not be on the same page. And do you know what happens when that occurs?

What does that have to do with negligence?

How were the teenagers negligent?

If it were proven that they had shot at the tiger with their slingshots, would you agree they were negligent?

If they could be shown to have violated the zoo's rules for visitors (which may have explicitly stated: No shooting at the exhibits with slingshots) would you agree they were negligent?

And if they were considered negligent, why would it be irrelevant in a liability suit?

I suppose that would depend on the nature of the law involved, wouldn't it?

Or that the animal had attacked in the past.

Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
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.

Are you suggesting that members of the zoo's staff should be put to death? Which members?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree and have said the same thing a few times in this thread. Here is one example. :devil:

Well, since you have said the same thing, then MOM has to tell you that same thing that she told Sozo.:

Everyone should have known when the tiger would have reacted like that. How about when it got out of its containment area.

Secondly, we do know what the tiger is thinking, and that is why it was kept in that containment area.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is another of those "you didn't tell me hot coffee in my lap could burn me" deals.

"Hey, no one told me that if I got drunk and annoyed a wild animal, I could get hurt."

Barbarian, how about this: "Hey, no one told me that if I got drunk and annoyed a wild animal in the zoo, I could get hurt.” You know that there is a difference?

No doubt the family of the "victim" will sue and argue that the zoo should have anticipated that drunken morons might torment the tiger sufficiently to make it attack.

Not just drunken morons, but also anyone in general. In case you are not aware, taunting of zoo animals is not just limited to drunken morons. >>>>Officials weigh charges against tiger victims

Excerpt from Article

Bekoff said taunting is common at zoos. He said students in his animal behavior courses during the 1990s found that 20 to 25% of zoo visitors taunted the animals — especially predators such as lions and tigers — by mimicking, yelling, throwing things at them or otherwise aggravating them.

While the zoo was clearly negligent in not providing a better enclosure, I wouldn't give those people a cent.

Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
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.

Exodus 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Personal responsibility still applies.

True, and for all involved.

 

[Town Heretic]

Barbarian, how about this: "Hey, no one told me that if I got drunk and annoyed a wild animal in the zoo, I could get hurt.” You know that there is a difference?

Hey, I know this one: on the one hand (Barbarian's) you have an idiot suffering the consequences of his mental shortcomings. On the other hand (yours) you have an idiot suffering the consequences whose family can enter a wrongful death suit and charge negligence on the part of the zoo.

What do I win?

Not just drunken morons, but also anyone in general. In case you are not aware, taunting of zoo animals is not just limited to drunken morons.

Not every moron who goes to the zoo is intoxicated; but, every intoxicated person who goes to the zoo is a moron. Don't mind me, I'm just looking for an angle.

True, and for all involved.

At least legally, yes.