Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

The individual is not holy. I understand why somebody mourns more over the loss of an endangered animal than someone of a species that acts like a cancer upon Earth (hint: we grow uncontrollably, knowing this kills the organism we live on).

Since humans are currently endangered, then MOM must assume that you understand why some people are actually mourning the individual who was killed. You know, it is always good to find someone who is still more worried about human life than lower animal and bestial life. Those people appear to be rare around here.

 

[noguru]

:rotfl: And this is why MOM can’t get the scientist to accept new info. If the tiger was only acting out of self defense, then what is the reason behind its movement at that point in time?

What new info? Self-defense. It was agitated enough to pursue a more complex strategy. Do you think this is out of the question for animal behavior?

Maybe you need to examine the definition for instinct. >>>INSTINCT

INSTINCT: noun: 1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity *had an instinct for the right word*
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

You highlighted the wrong definition. I highlighted the correct definition for tigers. Did you notice the word mediated, and below the conscious level?

I have studied this subject in detail. I suggest that you absorb the information you read instead of unquestionably thinking it is support for your position. Animals are not completely instinctual, and I never said they were, but their instinctual drive motivates those other processes. It seems that you are assuming that all animals behave in a completely instinctual manner. This is certainly not the case, nor was it something I thought was the case.

Tell me do you think the tiger realized the moral defficciency of its actions?

Could be.

Yes, and it could be that you are wrong. And it could be that you're absolutely clueless about these subjects but pretending that you have something substantial to offer.

 

[Caille]

Since humans are currently endangered

If you are referring to individual humans, I would agree. If you are referring to the species, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning behind such a statement. Don't rush. Anytime in the next few weeks will do.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No. The point I was trying to make is that opportunity in itself is no reason to do anything.

That is if you are not a lower animal or beast. As MOM has stated numerous times before, opportunity alone is not a reason that moves highly evolved beings.


MindOverMatter Post # 239

MindOverMatter Post # 244

MindOverMatter Post #272

There has to be motive first. If there is no motive the opportunity will be missed.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that in order for an individual person or object to commit an act, they must first have a motive or desire? In other words, in respects to this case, in order to kill and maul, the tiger must first have the desire or motive? Now if that is what you are saying, then MOM must agree. That is very true: Where there is no desire, there is no movement.

But at the same time, here is what MOM is trying to say: A motive or desire cannot be fulfilled without an opportunity. You can have all the desire in the world, but you cannot do anything with that desire if you are not given the opportunity. For example:

A man that is in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison may have the desire or wish to murder other people. But this desire cannot be fulfilled without direct access to people or potential victims. Who is he going to murder if there are no other people that are around him? Of course he could choose to kill himself, but that is not what he desires. Therefore, because there is no one to kill in his vicinity (but himself), his desire is in essence negated. His desire alone does not kill people. He must first be given the opportunity or the access to other people.

Now, the same thing is true with the tiger: The tiger from the zoo (as with all tigers) has the natural desire to kill other things or objects. But though it had this longing, it was unable to fulfill it without direct access to people or potential victims. And so, in essence, the tiger’s desire or motive was negated because there appeared to be no opportunity. But when the opportunity was made available, the tiger moved to fulfill the desire that was there all along.

So Noguru, the motive or desire of the tiger was negated when it appeared that there was no opportunity. Though it may have desired, it could not killed the young man without the opportunity. Desire where there is no opportunity is nothing but empty wishes.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you saying we should judge lower animals by human standards?

Noguru, by what other standards do you think that we should judge lower animals and beasts by? Are highly evolved humans supposed to be in charge or are lower animals or beasts supposed to be in charge?

 

[noguru]

So, in essence, what you are saying is that in order for an individual person or object to commit an act, they must first have a motive or desire? In other words, in respects to this case, in order to kill and maul, the tiger must first have the desire or motive? Now if that is what you are saying, then MOM must agree. That is very true: Where there is no desire, there is no movement.

For animals with a more sophisticated nervous system this is true. For some organisms it is entirely a response of each cell (mainly single celled organisms and plants). Which is a reaction totally within each cell. Then more complex multicelled animals have a collection of nerves called the medula oblongota as it is called in vertabrates (although there is a similar organ in invertabrates). This controls the basic nervous system in a coordinated manner, but also has an effect on cellular level reactions. Then there are animals with an even more sophisticated nervous system (more than just the medulla oblongota) which have an instinctual side which controls more complex behaviors. Then there are animals that have a part of the brain that remembers and recreates learned behaviors. The animals like humans which have a very lage frontal lobe are capable of more complex and intricate learned behavior. But they still have an instinctual part of their brain that motivates through unconscious drives. Reptiles, fish and amphibians have a very small portion of the brain that is responsible for learned behavior. In birds and mammals we see a larger portion of the brain that is responsible for learned behavior. This is also true with some cephalopods.

Now, the same thing is true with the tiger: The tiger from the zoo (as with all tigers) has the natural desire to kill other things or objects. But though it had this longing, it was unable to fulfill it without direct access to people or potential victims. And so, in essence, the tiger’s desire or motive was negated because there appeared to be no opportunity. But when the opportunity was made available, the tiger moved to fulfill the desire that was there all along.

Tigers are mammals. They have a pretty sophisticated nervous system in regard to the three components I have mentioned.

So Noguru, the motive or desire of the tiger was negated when it appeared that there was no opportunity. Though it may have desired, it could not killed the young man without the opportunity. Desire where there is no opportunity is nothing but empty wishes.

Opportunity is a logical definition. Even the most simplest organisms cannot react without opportunity. You seem to have a very dim understanding of this logic.

Noguru, by what other standards do you think that we should judge lower animals and beasts by?

Lower animals should not be judged on the same moral standards as humans. They are incapable of moral thought. There are some humans that are incapable of moral thought. However, if an animal or human is dangerous to other humans it should be delt with appropriately. Any animal that threatens humans or has proven to be dangerous to humans should be dealt with appropriately.

Are highly evolved humans supposed to be in charge or are lower animals or beasts supposed to be in charge?

We are derfinately in charge. Our enormous frontal lobe guarantees that this is so.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Generally that is true. But since even lower animals have an individualized makeup any prediction of what might threaten an animal is not universal.

Of course the same thing is not perceived as a threat by every single lower animals. But let MOM see if she understands you completely: Lets say that we capture 100 wild tigers from the jungles of Sumatra. And we take those 100 wild tigers and line them up. Finally, lets say that we send a Man to walk past those wild tigers. Now, are you saying that as a result of “individualized makeup,” while some of those tigers will feel threatened by the Man walking past, others will not? Are you saying that because of their “individualized makeup” we can’t predict that the majority of those 100 wild tiger will feel threatened by the man who is walking past?

There is also the alpha response (partly genetic, partly learned) to stimuli which will make an animal even more aggressive.

What does that have to do with whether or not the animal will feel threatened or not? What does the animal’s alpha response have to do with whether it feels threatened or not? An increase in aggression does not change the threat. The Man is still going to remain the threat. So are you saying that because of alpha response, we would not be able to predict whether the aforementioned tigers will feel threatened by the Man or not?

That is why behavioral biologist play close attention to visual signs of aggression (raised hair on their backs, certain body posturing...). I use to keep many trout in aquariums. From close observation I became very keen on recognizing these visual clues of aggression. When they were defensive/offensive (showing signs that they were about to fight for the alpha position) I knew I had to seperate the trout involved.

So, are you saying that as a result of “individualized makeup,” what is seen as a threat by your trout, is not seen as a threat by other trout from the same environment or position?

With lower animals like mammals there is still quite a bit of learned behavior. Hence dogs can be trained for certain duties or for fighting. All of these activities are just a release of instinctual drives.

But does the learned behavior change or alter the essential nature of the lower animal? Does training a dog to accomplish certain acts, completely change its physical constitution or drives?

Think of it like this. Each individual animal has an individual genetic makeup. This genetic makeup produces a phenotype based on that genetic plan. However the phenotype and the resulting behaviors can be affected by environment and training to a certain degree.

The key word being “to a certain degree.” Then what you are saying is that you can’t completely change the physical constitutions or drives of lower animals? And because that is the case, regardless of environment and training, those drives will remain at a certain degree?
Is that what you are saying?

At any rate, it is difficult to predict how a wild animal might react to certain stimuli. But there are certain guidelines that can be helpful.

How is it difficult to predict? For the most part, wild animals from the same environment will basically react in similar manners to certain stimuli. If as you have stated that phenotype and resulting behaviors are affected by environment, then animals that grow up in the same environment with the same genetic constitution, should react to certain stimuli in the same manner. In other words, all tigers which grow up in the same environment should react to a Man in the same manner. What is difficult to predict about their reactions?

In the case of the tiger, it may have been predisposed due to its genetic makeup towards aggression (moreso than most tigers).

So are you saying that most tigers are not naturally aggressive? And because that is the case, this SF tiger was in essence an anomaly? Are you also saying that since that tiger’s genetic makeup predisposed it towards aggression, a different tiger in that situation would not have attempted to kill or maul anyone and therefore would have generated much different results?

However, the behavior that those intoxicated youths displayed was certainly not designed to make the tiger feel unthreatened.

Wouldn’t you concede, that since it has been noted that at least 20 -25% of the people who visit zoos taunt and yell at the animals, then the tiger was probably in a constant state of agitation. In other words, this tiger did not all of a sudden become threatened by these guys. Instead, like most tigers, this one felt threatened by all the humans who it came in contact with.

 

[noguru]

Of course the same thing is not perceived as a threat by every single lower animals. But let MOM see if she understands you completely: Lets say that we capture 100 wild tigers from the jungles of Sumatra. And we take those 100 wild tigers and line them up. Finally, lets say that we send a Man to walk past those wild tigers. Now, are you saying that as a result of “individualized makeup,” while some of those tigers will feel threatened by the Man walking past, others will not? Are you saying that because of their “individualized makeup” we can’t predict that the majority of those 100 wild tiger will feel threatened by the man who is walking past?

Generally the less learned behavior an animal is capable of the more predictable to humans they will seem. My guess would be that we can predict a tigers behavior to a great degree. Of course this ability to predict will be greater the more aware someone is of tiger behavior. IOW, the more time one has spent observing tiger behavior the more capable they will generally be of predicting what any tiger will do given a certain situation. Individual makeup however, is definitely a factor. I have observed occasinal snakes or fish that behave differently than expected.

What does that have to do with whether or not the animal will feel threatened or not? What does the animal’s alpha response have to do with whether it feels threatened or not? An increase in aggression does not change the threat. The Man is still going to remain the threat. So are you saying that because of alpha response, we would not be able to predict whether the aforementioned tigers will feel threatened by the Man or not?

An animal has a threshold for certain stimuli before that stimuli will provoke a response. An animals alpha response is directly related to whether it feels threatened or not. We can predict to a certain degree, but there is always the factor of the unknown. The more unknowns, the less capable we are of predicting.

So, are you saying that as a result of “individualized makeup,” what is seen as a threat by your trout, is not seen as a threat by other trout from the same environment or position?

Generally since trout are simpler animals than tigers their responses are more predictable than tigers.

But does the learned behavior change or alter the essential nature of the lower animal? Does training a dog to accomplish certain acts, completely change its physical constitution or drives?

No. Learned behavior does not change the essential nature of lower animals. This was exactly the point I was making about instinct.

The key word being “to a certain degree.” Then what you are saying is that you can’t completely change the physical constitutions or drives of lower animals? And because that is the case, regardless of environment and training, those drives will remain at a certain degree?
Is that what you are saying?

Yes, that is accurate. Although with domesticated animals such as cats and dogs they remain as kittens and puppies in regard to their behavior. Since they are dependant on us for food they see us as kind of like their parents or provider.

How is it difficult to predict? For the most part, wild animals from the same environment will basically react in similar manners to certain stimuli. If as you have stated that phenotype and resulting behaviors are affected by environment, then animals that grow up in the same environment with the same genetic constitution, should react to certain stimuli in the same manner. In other words, all tigers which grow up in the same environment should react to a Man in the same manner. What is difficult to predict about their reactions?

I will repeat myself again. Tigers are capable of quite a bit of learned behavior. And their greater level of intelligence translates into a greater level of individuality.

So are you saying that most tigers are not naturally aggressive? And because that is the case, this SF tiger was in essence an anomaly? Are you also saying that since that tiger’s genetic makeup predisposed it towards aggression, a different tiger in that situation would not have attempted to kill or maul anyone and therefore would have generated much different results?

No. Since tigers are carnivores they are definately agressive animals. Although if they are well fed by humans they will be less likely to be aggressive. Since they are carnivores (carnivores tend to be more intelligent than herbivores) and they are very intelligent they have an aggressive nature in regard to social structure as well.

I do think this particular tigers behavior was out of the ordinary for a well fed tiger in an enclosure at a zoo. But then again I do not know all the details.

Wouldn’t you concede, that since it has been noted that at least 20 -25% of the people who visit zoos taunt and yell at the animals, then the tiger was probably in a constant state of agitation. In other words, this tiger did not all of a sudden become threatened by these guys. Instead, like most tigers, this one felt threatened by all the humans who it came in contact with.

Again I don't know enough of the details surrounding this particular situation, nor do I know that this 20 - 25% taunting figure you mentioned is taunting of the same nature that was done by these three individuals, to agree or disagree with this conclusion. I do not know if anone can say this is an accurate assessment.

 

[zoo22]

You highlighted the wrong definition. I highlighted the correct definition for tigers. Did you notice the word mediated, and below the conscious level?

You're stepping into dangerous territory. lain:

...Definitions.

Believe me, that's only the tip of an iceberg.

 

[Caille]

O
M
G


I've just skimmed through the last several pages of the Hocus Focus thread. I'll say this for our poster-to-be-unnamed, she's nothing if not prolific.


On a totally unrelated topic, did you know if you rearrange MindOverMatter, you get Mad Vomit Renter?

 

[lightbringer]

Noguru: "Lower animals should not be judged on the same moral standards as humans. They are incapable of moral thought. There are some humans that are incapable of moral thought. However, if an animal or human is dangerous to other humans it should be dealt with appropriately. Any animal that threatens humans or has prove to be dangerous to humans should be dealt with appropriately"

People band together, they picket prisons, they send petitions to their state governments in order to abolish the Death Sentence. They are saying its inhuman to put someone to death that made a conscious decision to kill another? But when an animal (a carnivore) does what it is born to do (survive) without premeditation, you guys want it put down?

MOM: " we can’t predict that the majority of those 100 wild tiger will feel threatened by the man who is walking past?"

All wild animals will feel threatened by the presence of man (the one creature in the animal kingdom that will kill for any reason and no reason at all) what is difficult to predict is their reaction to this stimuli, there are two responses to the fight or flight instinct!

MOM: "But does the learned behavior change or alter the essential nature of the lower animal? Does training a dog to accomplish certain acts, completely change its physical constitution or drives?

Now you are talking about domesticated animals, totally different situation. But to follow your lead, No it does not, but it does change the social circle of the domesticated animal (dogs) in fact the human becomes accepted as the alpha figure in the pack. this is an example of the adaptability of the dog for survival.

MOM: "regardless of environment and training, those drives will remain at a certain degree?"

Thats correct as far as a "wild" animal is concerned, domesticated animals respond differently but the instinctual drive is still there.

Noguru: "I do think this particular tigers behavior was out of the ordinary for a well fed tiger in an enclosure at a zoo. But then again I do not know all the details"

Its reaction was very predictable, it had two instinctive reactions available, 1. Flight 2. Fight!

Since this animal was held in captivity its fear of man may have been diminished some what, but the instincts remain!

The boys involved were possibly acting out of a diminished capacity due to one or more factors... drugs...alcohol...maturity... their perception was that they were safe since the animal was in an enclosure and could not react in a dangerous way toward them.

The same way a school bully feels, he's safe due to his size and apparent aggressiveness toward other children that may not exhibit the ability to defend themselves adequately.

The tiger was captured (or breed in captivity but was never domesticated) brought to the zoo for entertainment of the human creature. A situation arises that the tiger reacts in its instinctive way, a human animal is killed and others are mauled and the human animal reacts in a predictable manner....kill the tiger...?

To bad, we "the human animal" could not or did not live up to its lofty ideals that we are the thinking creature of the animal kingdom! Instead we run from our responsibilities and react predictably by pointing the finger and saying "its not my fault"!

Some people can not handle responsibility!

 

[noguru]

People band together, they picket prisons, they send petitions to their state governments in order to abolish the Death Sentence. They are saying its inhuman to put someone to death that made a conscious decision to kill another? But when an animal (a carnivore) does what it is born to do (survive) without premeditation, you guys want it put down?

Yes, I think human life is a higher priority than other animals. Go ahead and call me crazy. This does not mean we have to be cruel to animals or put them down as a knee jerk reaction. What should we do with a pit bull that has shown that it will attack humans?

Just for your information, I am not against the death penalty in theory. I just think that it should be used sparingly.

Its reaction was very predictable, it had two instinctive reactions available, 1. Flight 2. Fight!

Yes, I already explained this to MOM. Perhaps you should read the prior posts before zealously jumping in on a subject.

Since this animal was held in captivity its fear of man may have been diminished some what, but the instincts remain!

Yes, I made this point as well.

The boys involved were possibly acting out of a diminished capacity due to one or more factors... drugs...alcohol...maturity... their perception was that they were safe since the animal was in an enclosure and could not react in a dangerous way toward them.

This is exactly true. I mentioned this by saying that "At a zoo, people have the expectation that the animals cannot excape and harm them."

The same way a school bully feels, he's safe due to his size and apparent aggressiveness toward other children that may not exhibit the ability to defend themselves adequately.

From my experience most schoolyard bullies are actually the most cowardly. Their aggresive and boasting stance is usually a cover up for extreme feelings of insecurity. When they are confronted and challenged they generally back out of the confrontation, but will still try to claim victory.

The tiger was captured (or breed in captivity but was never domesticated) brought to the zoo for entertainment of the human creature. A situation arises that the tiger reacts in its instinctive way, a human animal is killed and others are mauled and the human animal reacts in a predictable manner....kill the tiger...?

I think they killed the tiger because his actions demonstrated that he was a threat to humans. The tiger was probably more intelligent than other tigers, which woud mean that his skills at escaping containment were greater.

There is also the factor that the containment unit was not built to the standard. This was a contributing factor that reeks of negligence on the zoo's part. At any rate, how do you think the zoo can justify keeping the tiger alive to the public? What would that do to public opinion?

To bad, we "the human animal" could not or did not live up to its lofty ideals that we are the thinking creature of the animal kingdom! Instead we run from our responsibilities and react predictably by pointing the finger and saying "its not my fault"!

Yes, this is all true. We are very intelligent and have the most sophisticated nervous system of any animal. This also translates into a greater degree of individuality among our species. With such individuality there will also be greater degree of rationalizing away one's own responsibilities.

Some people can not handle responsibility!

That is true. And some people can't handle the truth. But does that mean one should not offer such?

 

[Town Heretic]

You're stepping into dangerous territory. lain:

...Definitions.

Believe me, that's only the tip of an iceberg.

Abandon hope all ye who argue here...:readthis:

 

[Sweet Pea]

Is this thread STILL going on?

Oh, my....

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is based on the fight or flight mechanism. Which is one of the most basic animal behaviors in regard to self-preservation. An animal sizes up any possible threat to its life and decides whether to run or fight. To stay and fight the animal does its best in regard to defending its ground by appearing to be as aggressive as possible. From what I have seen animals do have basic emotions that are rudimentary outlines of more complex human emotions. What is the closest human emotion that you think best describes this aggressive and defensive stance towards another? How about the terms anger, hostility, aggression?

Now Noguru, your main postulate or the main position that you have been maintaining throughout this thread is that lower animals and beasts, generally attack as a result of hunger, or because there is threat to their life (self-defense). Here are some of the posts which verify those assertions:

>>>Noguru Post #114

>>>Noguru Post # 124

>>>Noguru Post # 130

MOM’s main postulate or assertion, is that animals and lower beasts will attack whenever. In other words, lower animals and beasts will attack when there is an actual threat, when there is no actual threat, when they are hungry and when they are not hungry. And because this is the case, that is needed for an attack is a favorable juncture of circumstances or opportunity. Here are some of the posts which verify those assertions:

>>>MOM Post # 239

>>>MOM Post # 240

>>>MOM Post # 244

So, from these two postulates, the questions that we must come to answer are these this: Do lower animals and beasts only attack because there is a threat and because they are hungry? Or will lower animals and beasts attack when there is an actual threat, when there is no actual threat, when they are hungry, and when they are not hungry?

Now, to help US answer that question, let’s take a look at what you have stated about the flight or flight mechanism.

With the fight or flight mechanism you say that “An animal sizes up any possible threat to its life and decides whether to run or fight.” And also, “to stay and fight the animal does its best in regard to defending its ground by appearing to be as aggressive as possible.”


So, based on your postulation, the information that you have just provided about the fight or flight mechanism, and other gathered details, we can also say this: It has been learned and documented that for the purpose of self-preservation or staying alive, lower animals and beasts will instinctively run or fight (fight or flight) when they see or feel a perceivable threat to their Life. Do you agree?

Since this is the case, then let US come to a couple of propositions:

1. In what it considers to be its vicinity, lower animals or beasts will react to the presence of things which appear to be and things which are a threat to their Self -Preservation or Life. Or we may also say that when in an area, lower animals and beasts will instinctively react to perceived and actual threats to their Self-Preservation or Life. Is all of this correct?

2. In that reaction or in response to those perceived and actual threats to their Self-Preservation or Life, the lower animals and beasts will automatically go through physiological changes in their bodies (fight or flight). These physiological changes will lead the animals to become more aggressive. And as a result of that heightened aggressive state, they may either move to run (flight) or fight. Is all of this correct?

Now, let US take those propositions and let US see if we can arrive at some conclusions about lower animals and beasts that we can agree on.

First, since they instinctively react to both perceived and actual threats to their Self-Preservation or Life, we can conclude that lower animals and beasts will instinctively react or respond to both real and imagined threats to their Self-Preservation or Life. Do you agree?

Secondly, since lower animals and beasts will instinctively react or respond to both real and imagined threats to their Self-Preservation or Life, and in that reaction or response they will go through physiological changes in their bodies, and these changes will lead them to become more aggressive, then we can conclude that when they instinctively react or respond to both real and imagined threats to their Self-Preservation or Life, the bodies of lower animals and beasts will automatically go through physiological changes that will lead them to become more aggressive. Do you agree?

Now, from those two conclusions, Lets US see if we can come to answer our question:

Since the bodies of lower animals and beasts will automatically go through physiological changes when they instinctively react or respond to both real and imagined threats to their Self-Preservation or Life, and these physiological changes will lead them to become more aggressive, then we can finally conclude that whether there is a threat or not to their Self-Preservation or Life, lower animals and beasts will be led to become more aggressive.

In other words, since they will instinctively react or respond to both real and imagined threats, there does not have to be an actual or immediate threat to the Self-Preservation or Life in order for a lower animal or beast to become aggressive. And because starvation is also a threat to Self-Preservation and Life, then this would also include hunger. Lower animals and beast are moving strictly by emotion or what they feel. Before they react or go into a heightened aggressive state (fight or flight), they do not make a distinction between real and imagined threats. This is because that move is instinctive, and so they will enter into that state(fight or flight) without seeking concrete proof. In fact, the only “proof” that they will require, is the “proof” that they have received from their feeling or gut.

Finally, because they move primarily by way of feelings and emotions, lower animals and beasts do not seek concrete proof. Instead, all that is really necessary for them, is a favorable or pleasing concurrence of circumstance or an opportunity. And when this opportunity is made available or comes to light, they will move to act, react, or attack. Do you comprehend and agree?



Now Noguru, let’s continue to examine this part of your statement.

To stay and fight the animal does its best in regard to defending its ground by appearing to be as aggressive as possible. From what I have seen animals do have basic emotions that are rudimentary outlines of more complex human emotions. What is the closest human emotion that you think best describes this aggressive and defensive stance towards another? How about the terms anger, hostility, aggression?

First, how is the animal “APPEARING” to be aggressive? Is it putting on an illusion? Is it disassembling? If the animal feels threatened and therefore goes into its fight or flight mode, then how is it “APPEARING” to be more aggressive? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction? Wouldn’t that be akin to saying that someone who feels threatened has gone into an angry state or mode (become angry) but they are only appearing to be angry? Wouldn’t they be considered angry if they are in an obvious angry state or mode? Or can you feel threatened and be in an obvious angry state or mode and not be angry?

So, if the animal feels threatened and therefore goes into its fight or flight mode, then wouldn’t it “BE” in an aggressive state or mode at that point ? Doesn’t the move into the fight or flight mode come as a result of perceived and actual threats? And in the fight or flight mode, doesn’t the animal go through physiological changes in its body?

Certain environmental stimuli.

And so you are of the belief that opportunity is not one of these environmental stimuli which causes or leads to the manifestation of these instinctual drives?

The drive to hunt when an animal is fed by humans will manifest itself in different ways. The drive for self-defense is never lost because there is always the threat of something ending the life of that animal. Although with domesticated animals (carnivorous animals like cats and dogs) humans are viewed as part of their social unit. With wild animals this is not the case.

And so, since there is always the threat of something ending the life of an animal, and that drive is never lost, then are you saying that lower animals and beasts are constantly in a certain state of self-defense. Is that correct?

Boredom defintely had something to do with it. It was probably a contributing factor. I do not think that boredom alone can be seen as the tigers reason to attack. I think the behavior of those young men produced in the mind of the tiger the possibility of a threat from these three humans. The boredom or the lack of other stimuli (like hunting, more land to explore....) also magnified the impact of the three human's behavior being a factor. Plus when any animal feels confined it will instinctively become more defensive of its territory.

And so you are of the mind that boredom has nothing to do with Opportunity? Is opportunity not found in boredom? Correct MOM if she’s wrong but isn’t a state of boredom also a state of opportunity? Or does the state of opportunity cease when one enters the state of boredom?

 

[noguru]

And so you are of the mind that boredom has nothing to do with Opportunity? Is opportunity not found in boredom? Correct MOM if she’s wrong but isn’t a state of boredom also a state of opportunity? Or does the state of opportunity cease when one enters the state of boredom?

I will take your last paragragh as an example of how debate with you becomes hopeless and nonproductive.

Boredom definately breeds opportunity, but this is irellevant to the point I was making. This is an obvious reality to anyone who is over 5 years of age and has no baring on the point I was making.

You have turned this into a Mexican standoff. If you really have something of value to offer the scientific community please submit it for peer review. You are repeatig yourself, repeating what I am saying and not realizing what any of it means. I have explained my view many times, and your latest paraphrasing is way off base. You can't even see where we agree and leave that out, so that we can focus on where we don't agree. This demonstrates that you are either not here to find resolve or can not distinguish what that is. Perhaps this is just a debate excersize for you.

I will respond to you the same way I respond to my niece who is in that stage where she just wants to argue for arguements sake. I am growing tired of this debate. You win. You are correct. Next subject please. :wave:

And you don't have to come back and flaunt the fact that you have exhausted me with your bluster. I forfeit, you win. Now take that to the bank.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****."

 

[MindOverMatter]

If the death sentence is the only answer, the person that built the wall too short should be in question, along with all the inspectors that never required it's correction.

Why would you only charge the person who built the wall? He or she was probably following someone else’s recommendations. So if you are going to charge the person who built the wall, would it not be appropriate to also lay blame on the person who authorized the building?

The Tiger in question was not a domestic animal, it was a captive, even if it was never in the wild. There is a great deal of difference!

What is the big difference between a tiger that is in the wild and one that is held captive? Does the act of captivity transform the tiger into something else than a tiger? Does captivity make a tiger stop eating meat?

The responsibilities of managing large animals is far reaching and should never be taken lightly.

True.

Destroying the animal is a reaction by people (Oh my God he's a killer!) out of stupidity and fear.

So, you believe that destroying a murderer is only done out of stupidity and fear? In other words, those who destroy or kill murderers are only doing so because they are stupid and afraid? That is a quite interesting conclusion.

Now, if that is your belief, then you must also be of the mind that the opposite is true: Those who do protect or save murderers from destruction, are doing so because they are wise and brave? So what makes the saving of a murder such a wise and brave choice?

The Tiger did, what Tigers do!

True. And so, does the fact that the tiger was just doing what tigers do, exempt it from the consequences of its actions? Does the fact that a bird is just doing what birds do exempt it from the consequences that it will receive from hitting a plane?

Here is another one: Humans walk. Or walking is what humans do. Now does the fact that a human who gets hit while walking across the street (doing what humans do) exempt that human from suffering the consequences of his actions?

It's too bad we've lost another of Gods magnificent creatures due to our limited ability to understand and take responsibility for our actions.

Are you talking about the tiger or the young man?

 

[MindOverMatter]

How would you morally apply boredom, anger, play, to the actions of animals? Perhaps you could start a new reality show called "Animal Court". :chuckle:

Well, since those things are some of the programmed behaviors of lower animals and beasts, MOM would have to say that it is right for them to be bored, angry, and playful.

 

[MindOverMatter]

When an attempt is made at applying human emotion and reasoning to an animal I have to question the statement "Man, The reasoning creature of the world!"

MindOverMatter, please tell me you jest....:dizzy:

Jest about what? So are you of the mind that lower animals and beasts do not have any emotion or reason?

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don't get this. I don't "love animals more" but I do understand that they are not to be held to the same level of responsibility as humans are.

Humans are to be held at a higher level of responsibility, but that does not mean that animals are free from sharing any blame.

They act more on instinct than we do. We have big frontal lobes that can plan our actions according to what we think is moral. They don't.

You better look again if you are of the belief that lower animals and beasts cannot plan their actions according to what they think is moral. How do you think they catch prey?

I really don't get the "humans VS animals" thing AT ALL.

Again, its called the struggle for existence.

That some of us care for animals a great deal does not mean we value them more than humans.

That’s what it means if you place them before highly developed human beings. That’s what it means when lower animals and beasts have better homeless shelters than byour veterans.

>>>Homeless Vets 0 Homeless Pets 1

That some of us don't consider them just "put here by god for us", worth only for what they can do for us, does not mean that we DEvalue people.

It does if more of your actions are geared towards pleasing those lower animals and beasts.

>>>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

That gold is worth more than silver does not make silver worthless, kwim?
~SP

But it doesn’t mean that you ignore gold and move to place more investments into silver.

 

[lightbringer]

Why would you only charge the person who built the wall? He or she was probably following someone else’s recommendations. So if you are going to charge the person who built the wall, would it not be appropriate to also lay blame on the person who authorized the building?

My answer to that was covered in an earlier post!



What is the big difference between a tiger that is in the wild and one that is held captive? Does the act of captivity transform the tiger into something else than a tiger? Does captivity make a tiger stop eating meat?

You enjoy twisting what others say. My post in question was between a domestic animal and a tiger.


So, you believe that destroying a murderer is only done out of stupidity and fear? In other words, those who destroy or kill murderers are only doing so because they are stupid and afraid? That is a quite interesting conclusion.

Again you wish to twist things to your benefit! We are talking about an animal?

True. And so, does the fact that the tiger was just doing what tigers do, exempt it from the consequences of its actions? Does the fact that a bird is just doing what birds do exempt it from the consequences that it will receive from hitting a plane?

Yes, since this is an animal that reacts to instinct and it is the captive of the worlds thinking creature!

"It's too bad we've lost another of Gods magnificent creatures due to our limited ability to understand and take responsibility for our actions."

Are you talking about the tiger or the young man?

We are one of Gods magnificent creatures as well as the Tiger, its too bad the young people were killed or maimed, but we are the thinking creature or so we say we are!

The Young men were harassing the tiger while thinking they were protected (something bullies do!) oops! Guess their ability in the thought process was faulty.

Only a fool would attempt to place guilt or responsibility on an animal that lives and reacts to base instincts.