Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

I'd have to disagree. If the industry standard says all tiger enclosures should exceed x height and the zoo failed to meet or exceed those requirements, they are at fault.

They are at fault for failing to exceed the standards? How does that work?

Had the industry standards been changed after the enclosure had been erected then perhaps it's not their fault although it's not unheard of for people to win cases where the regulations were changed after the structure had been built.

But what if the people at the zoo were given enough time to change those standards? Are they still not at fault if they have failed to act in an appropriate time to meet the new standards?

(A drunk guy here fell over a stair handrail. When it was put in place it met the requirements but the standard was changed. The judge ruled that ti was up to the hotel to maintain the building to meet industry standards or risk liability)

But it wasn’t up to the drunk guy to meet the standards of not being drunk? You gotta love it! :rotfl:

The guys were taunting a tiger. Whilst that may be stupid and cruel, they acted with reasonable belief that the tiger was adequately contained.

True, and where did that belief come from? Why did they believe that the tiger was adequately contained?

If they aided the tigers escape, they can be held personally responsible for the consequences of the escape but otherwise they didn't act in such a way where a mauling would be expected or reasonable outcome.

Quite true. Considering the fact that 20-25% of zoo visitors taunt the animals, and 20 -25% of the people who visit zoos are not mauled.

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

 

[cattyfan]

As MOM has long since surpassed 100 posts on this thread, having more than four times the number of posts of anyone else on this thread, and more than 1/4 of the total posts on this thread, I have retitled it accordingly.

I was gonna call it "Ode To A Big Ball Of Crazy," but decided against it because it would no longer make clear the (supposed) topic of the thread.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don't think anyone says that the zoo wasn't at fault here, too.

But contributory negligence applies here. If they weren't mean and drunk and stupid, this wouldn't have happened.

That is a possibility. But it would just have happened to someone else.

Too bad, but society isn't obligated to protect people from their own idiocy.

Then what purpose is the society? Why isn’t a society obligated to protect its own people from their own idiocy? What is the main goal or purpose of a society that is not there to protect its own people? What good is a society that is not there to protect its own people?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Get rid of 'zoos' (not you zoo22) and createa few more natural reserve parks where

A: The animals aren't locked up in caged environments....

actually, just A....

But the problem will still exist? Or does the act of having a natural reserve park completely erase the chances of an animal attack?

 

[MindOverMatter]

My local zoo has the tigers in a very large enclosure with MUCH higher walls than what I saw of SF, and there's NO WAY anyone could possibly get on them and mess around. The viewing area where people can see the tigers is separated from the animals by a clear wall of very strong glass-like material (not sure if it's tempered glass or something else. I know I've shot pictures through it with no problem). I wondered why it was possible to get on the wall in the first place, and also why someone was idiotic enough to taunt a tiger.

~SP

One thing that you will eventually learn in this life is to never say never. Reality has a funny way of proving wrong those who are of the mind that something is impossible. Check the Titanic for reference

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree to a point. I live in a city which has a wonderful zoo, and they do have tigers there, but there's no way they can get out.

Again, never say never.

They can't jump that high.

Maybe not yet.

Secondly, who says that they have to jump to get out.

When I saw the enclosure on the news, I was surprised that the walls weren't higher. OTOH, if I were on a jury in this likely lawsuit I would give some weight to the fact that these people shouldn't have been messing around and tormenting the animal.

Well, that is all fine and dandy but you will have to consider a couple of questions:

First, were these individuals made aware of the fact that they should not taunt the animals? Where there any signs or warnings that were issued to those who entered the zoo? Because form looking at things, it seems like taunting animals at the zoo is pretty much the norm.

Secondly, who allowed those guys in? If MOM recalls, the report says that they were under the influence.

What I would try to do is give compensation for expenses (medical, funeral) but no multi-million dollar "pain and suffering" or punitive awards---I'd rather see the zoo use the money to improve its facility's safety than to reward stupidity.
~SP

Question: Would it make a difference if the guys were not under the influence? In other words, would give a multi-million dollar "pain and suffering" or punitive awards if the guys were not under the influence?

 

[Lighthouse]

As MOM has long since surpassed 100 posts on this thread, having more than four times the number of posts of anyone else on this thread, and more than 1/4 of the total posts on this thread, I have retitled it accordingly.

I was gonna call it "Ode To A Big Ball Of Crazy," but decided against it because it would no longer make clear the (supposed) topic of the thread.

It would have been funnier if you had just deleted most of her posts.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Those fools (well one anyway, and I mean the people, not the tiger) also attacked a uniformed cop. Someone was going to take them out at some point. Though I don't imagine anyone would have predicted that it would be a tiger.

And so you keep bringing up this issue about one of them attacking a uniformed cop, why? Since the tiger is the one who murdered someone, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to bring up that fact that it had attacked one of its keepers before?

 

[MindOverMatter]

:chuckle: Would have come as quite the shock...

No one expects the tiger...

Why? You know, it is always funny when you hear that the most powerful being in the room is always the last one to come under suspicion. :rotfl:

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think antelopes might expect tigers. That's why the tigers have to sneak up on them. lain:

Then are you saying that in respects to the behavior of the tiger, antelopes have more intelligence than highly developed humans?

Antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not. That is quite interesting to learn. You know you can find all the tiger’s information in a book. Or does this highly developed and rational generation even read books? :rotfl:

Study: Americans Reading A Lot Less

And evidently understanding and comprehending a whole lot less too.:rotfl:

But Americans are consuming a whole lot more. The problem is that this consumption is not extending to books. :chew: :cheers::TomO: :turkey: :cow: :spam:

 

[zoo22]

Then are you saying that in respects to the behavior of the tiger, antelopes have more intelligence than highly developed humans?

No, of course that's not what I'm saying.

Natural/innate instinct is not the same as intelligence.

Antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not. That is quite interesting to learn.

If that's what you learned from what I wrote, maybe you ought to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

You know you can find all the tiger’s information in a book. Or does this highly developed and rational generation even read books? :rotfl:

Study: Americans Reading A Lot Less
And evidently understanding and comprehending a whole lot less too.:rotfl:

Yes. I think that came into play here.

Why do you find it so funny?

 

[Town Heretic]

I have a cat named Tiger...


He's not dead though. lain:


Zoo, I am beginning to suspect that MOM is responding instinctually, making your point in that respect clearer with each post.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Is this YOUR standard, TH?

We all know how Christians like yourself stick together no matter what they've done but let something happen to a church or congregation and you're all weepy or up in arms.

Hey, what do you expect? Haven’t you heard of the Law of Birds or LOB: Birds of a feather will flock together.

But if a church does something to a defenseless drunk idiot with an attitude then it's goodbye emapthy and hello obedience.

First, what incident are you talking about?

Secondly, obedience on whose part?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Firstly, I take it that by Christians like me you mean tall, handsome, left handed, color blind and remarkably perceptive…an unusual combination but I’ll accept the mathematical possibility.

Hey Towny, you know that all of those self-observations are subjective and therefore can be disputed. :wazzup:

Secondly, I’m rarely weepy and then only at the funeral of a close friend or the opening day of duck season, which itself is a remarkable thing as I never participate (in duck season—I have been known to carry a coffin around, though never at funerals) but there’s no accounting for what moves us, unless it’s bran….where was I? :liberals:

For the funeral MOM can pretty much figure out the reason for the tears. But why are you weeping for the ducks? Are those tears of joy? Are you happy because the time has arrived for you to enjoy duck as a meal? Or are you weeping because the ducks are going to be killed for someone else’s meal? Or are you crying because people are killing ducks just for sport?

Lastly, I don’t know how it is where you come from---and why is that? And, contrary to your perception, I find drunks mostly offensive, especially so when driving, but then I’m just naturally cranky when I’m driving. :squint:

The funny thing is that many drunks will find you offensive. Most drunks are offended by sober people.

So in conclusion I feel confident that one of us has irrefutably established the “rightness” if not righteousness of his position and left the other a poor excuse for a pauper in the tenement row of ideas, an ideological orphan on mother’s day, a motorist without a causeway, a reasoned lemming at the edge of a precipitous argument. And with that it’s time for soup. :chew:

:rotfl: When life gives you lemmings you should go and make lemmingade. :cheers:

What's that? No, I use a fork...Sorry, was that you or am I off my meds again? :think:

Now how does that work? What type of soup do you eat with a fork?

 

[Sweet Pea]

As MOM has long since surpassed 100 posts on this thread, having more than four times the number of posts of anyone else on this thread, and more than 1/4 of the total posts on this thread, I have retitled it accordingly.

I was gonna call it "Ode To A Big Ball Of Crazy," but decided against it because it would no longer make clear the (supposed) topic of the thread.

*!*!*!APPLAUSE*!*!*!

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

And MOM must admit that they are pretty good conversations. Better than some of those that are to be had with some on this board. You should try it sometimes.
((blabla(blabla:

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

You are going to have some serious problems if you are starting a business just because you can.

Secondly, the opportunity to escape is not the only reason that moves people to run away from a tsunami.

Can be.

Opportunity alone can be provocative for lower animals, animals, beasts, and their kind.

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.

Actually, the opposite is true: Most people have more empathy for lower animals and beasts than they do for humans. Just look through the thread.

Good point.

Well thank you

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.

And what do the horses tell him?

Absolutely! Logic and reason have their limitations, especially the Western-type worldview. Science can only tell us so much.

Science can only tell you what you limit it to.

Questions about reality and the soul are dealt with by religions and their sacred literature.

And Science.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I have a question, particularly for those who are seeing this discussion as "smearing the humans". Why is there this "us vs them" mentality?

Because there is a little thing in this reality that is called the Struggle For Existence.

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.

No one knows why exactly the tiger did what it did? Sweet Pea, question: Would we be having this discussion if the tiger had not escaped from it’s containment?

Predators attack, it's what they do.

When given the opportunity. You can’t attack if there is nothing to attack.

What needs to be justified is the inadequate enclosure whereby the tiger could get out.

True, and that the tiger was right in what it did and that humans were right in killing it

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.

Very good point

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

MOM guesses that for some, we have to justify the act of killing the tiger. Some people believe that it was wrong to kill the tiger. They believe that since the tiger was only doing what it was made to do, it was “innocent.” And if it was “innocent,” then it should not have been held to some set of moral values and killed.

Example 1 with Quote>>> Red 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......

 

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Firstly, I take it that by Christians like me you mean tall, handsome, left handed, color blind and remarkably perceptive…an unusual combination but I’ll accept the mathematical possibility.

Hey Towny, you know that all of those self-observations are subjective and therefore can be disputed.

What, are people taller where you hail from than they find themselves elsewhere?
Is the landscape more vivid?
Is all the silverware one sided?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Secondly, I’m rarely weepy and then only at the funeral of a close friend or the opening day of duck season, which itself is a remarkable thing as I never participate (in duck season—I have been known to carry a coffin around, though never at funerals) but there’s no accounting for what moves us, unless it’s bran….where was I?

For the funeral MOM can pretty much figure out the reason for the tears. But why are you weeping for the ducks? Are those tears of joy? Are you happy because the time has arrived for you to enjoy duck as a meal? Or are you weeping because the ducks are going to be killed for someone else’s meal? Or are you crying because people are killing ducks just for sport?

Don't worry after it, I was just in a fowl mood. :nono:

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Lastly, I don’t know how it is where you come from---and why is that? And, contrary to your perception, I find drunks mostly offensive, especially so when driving, but then I’m just naturally cranky when I’m driving.

The funny thing is that many drunks will find you offensive. Most drunks are offended by sober people.

Well you know what they say or you should by now, as often as they’ve said it.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
So in conclusion I feel confident that one of us has irrefutably established the “rightness” if not righteousness of his position and left the other a poor excuse for a pauper in the tenement row of ideas, an ideological orphan on mother’s day, a motorist without a causeway, a reasoned lemming at the edge of a precipitous argument. And with that it’s time for soup.

When life gives you lemmings you should go and make lemmingade.

HEY! Okay, that wasn't half bad. :rotfl:
Very, very well done and don’t you wish everyone was by now?
I know I do. lain:

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
What's that? No, I use a fork...Sorry, was that you or am I off my meds again?

Now how does that work? What type of soup do you eat with a fork?

My wife’s, bless her…or better yet, bless the meal. :think: She's quite beautiful. I said so the first moment I set eyes on her. And now I know that feast will have to suffice.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

~SP

And that’s just what the Bible recommends. So MOM doesn’t know why other supposed Christians have a big problem with this?

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.