Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

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,

Maybe now you can go and study the definitions of Subject. >>>SUBJECT

SUBJECT: transitive verb: 1 a : to bring under control or dominion : SUBJUGATE b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior
2 : to make liable : PREDISPOSE
3 : to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying) *was subjected to constant verbal abuse*
–sub£jec£tion \s*b-*jek-sh*n\ noun

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:

Well, thanks to you and others, it has succeeded in proving a whole lot on the scientific and political spectrum.:thumb:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Wow!

Twenty-five pages of.... what? Nonsense?

Nonsense is subjective and therefore is modified or affected by your personal views, experience, position, and or background. And so in this case, it depends on whether your experience has taught you to read and comprehend what has been written.

Just think: The Wall Street Journal is seen as nonsense by a pygmy who lives in the bush. In his world, those words that he sees are but a bunch of gibberish.

Bottom line? The zoo had a responsibililty to keep the tiger from getting out and attacking visitors.

Must agree. But was the responsibility the zoo’s alone?

It failed.

It sure looks that way.

The zoo also had a responsibility to keep visitors from pestering the animals. It failed.

Must agree.

The visitors had a responsibility to respect the animals. They failed.

Must agree.

The animal had a responsibility to act like an animal. It succeeded.

Must agree.

And was put to death for doing what it is expected to do.

True. That tends to happen a lot in life: people getting punished for doing what they are expected to do.

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

How about the young man who was killed by the tiger for doing what he was expected to do?

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

Its not nonsense when you can comprehend it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

~SP

Of course. You have to understand that MOM and Johana have been arguing back and forth for a while now. Hopefully she has been arguing with MOM long enough that she knows not to get all emotional and take it personal. :bannana:

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

True, but it provides the zoo with a reasonable and acceptable alibi. The zoo cannot be considered negligent if the walls were built up to standard and the tiger was an anomaly. If they had built the walls according to what is known about the majority of tigers, then they would have done what they were required to do. But they still would have still had one problem: It had been reported that in the past the tiger had attacked one of its handlers. If this is true then the zoo would have still had big problems.

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.

What does that have to do with negligence?

Expectations and reality has everything to do with negligence. >>> NEGLIGENT


NEGLIGENT: adjective: 1 a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances
2 : marked by a carelessly easy manner

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

Not necessarily.

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?

Not necessarily.

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

Suppose so, but MOM believes that everything that applies to the case should be admitted and weighed.

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

Why not? If it is proven that there negligence was the main reason behind someone else’s death, then why not? That would sure stop a lot of people from neglecting their responsibilities.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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?

:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :first:

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

:rotfl: At least you had the decency to go back and change that very misleading title.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

Yes, you would find that funny? MOM would expect that from you. So how does it go again Lighthouse: If you can't understand em, ban em. Or was it, If you can't intellectually beat em, delete em. Or maybe it was the other one that lower animals and beasts use: If you can't intellectualy beat em, eat em. Which one was your favorite motto again?

Now, what is actually funnier is going through your threads and postings and reading your lame and inefficient arguments. Those things are quite the riot.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

Natural/innate instinct is not the same as intelligence.

Of course they are not exactly the same in that as a result of appearance they are not seen as being on the same level. But both are still part of consciousness. The difference lies in where each is located on the levels of consciousness: Instinct lies at the lower levels of consciousness and intelligence lies at the higher levels of consciousness. Intelligence is essentially an instinct that has gone through evolution or a highly evolved instinct. And instinct is essentially low level intelligence or intelligence that has not evolved past a certain low level.

Now by saying that antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not, you are essentially stating that humans have devolved below the level of instinct. And if they have devolved below that level, then two things:

First, the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level.

Secondly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, then antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans.

Thirdly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, and antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans, then maybe some beings are not as highly developed and rational as they have presumed themselves to be.

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

Or maybe you don’t comprehend what you yourself wrote. Here is what you wrote: ZOO post #232

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

And here is what MOM wrote in response: MindOverMatter Post # 390

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:

Yes. I think that came into play here.

Why do you find it so funny?

Well, it’s because according to many of US, everyone but US is supposedly irrational. So it is always quite funny when one really examines the evidence and ponders how that conclusion was reached by many of US. You see, lower animals and beasts, see things in reverse. And so what that means is that while highly evolved beings see the behaviors of lower animals and beasts as irrational, lower animals and beasts see the behaviors of highly evolved beings as irrational.

 

[johana]

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.

Aw... Sore are we? And by we, I mean you.

Darling I'm sure that if murderers had to listen to you they wouldn't have to beg for the chair, they'd do the job themselves...

Sweet Pea - What she meant to say is that I've seen enough of her to expect her to be rude and hypocritical.

 

[noguru]

Well, it’s because according to many of US, everyone but US is supposedly irrational. So it is always quite funny when one really examines the evidence and ponders how that conclusion was reached by many of US. You see, because lower animals and beasts, see things in reverse. And so what that means is that while highly evolved beings see the behaviors of lower animals and beasts as irrational, lower animals and beasts see the behaviors of highly evolved beings as irrational.

So you think the tiger was thinking "Boy these humans are irrational! I will kill them for being irrational"?

 

[zoo22]

Of course they are not exactly the same in that they are not equal. But both are still part of consciousness. The difference lies in where each is located on the levels of consciousness: Instinct lies at the lower levels of consciousness and intelligence lies at the higher levels of consciousness. Intelligence is essentially an instinct that has gone through evolution or a highly evolved instinct. And instinct is essentially low level intelligence or intelligence that has not evolved past a certain low level.

Now by saying that antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not, you are essentially stating that humans have devolved below the level of instinct. And if they have devolved below that level, then two things:

First, the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level.

Secondly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, then antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans.

Thirdly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, and antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans, then maybe some beings are not as highly developed and rational as they have presumed themselves to be.

There are enough things wrong in there, and they take such a weird little journey of "if this, then that," that I don't quite know where to start. So I won't.

But you are doing it again. Building an "argument" on a fallacious premise. And once again, you are creating an "either/or" in a place that it doesn't belong.

Or maybe you don’t comprehend what you yourself wrote. Here is what you wrote: ZOO post #232

And here is what MOM wrote in response: MindOverMatter Post # 390

Oh, I know what I wrote. I also know what your "so what you are saying, ZOO, is this..." said. I read it. And lo and behold, what you told me I was saying wasn't what I was saying. And I said as much.

The antelope comment was actually just a lighthearted comment, not meant as a discussion point... A response to the "nobody ever expects the tiger" post. But things take funny (ie: odd) turns sometimes.

Well, it’s because according to many of US, everyone but US is supposedly irrational. So it is always quite funny when one really examines the evidence and ponders how that conclusion was reached by many of US. You see, because lower animals and beasts, see things in reverse. And so what that means is that while highly evolved beings see the behaviors of lower animals and beasts as irrational, lower animals and beasts see the behaviors of highly evolved beings as irrational.

That's why you think it's funny (ie: ha ha) that people are reading less?

 

[lightbringer]

Of course they are not exactly the same in that they are not equal. But both are still part of consciousness. The difference lies in where each is located on the levels of consciousness: Instinct lies at the lower levels of consciousness and intelligence lies at the higher levels of consciousness. Intelligence is essentially an instinct that has gone through evolution or a highly evolved instinct. And instinct is essentially low level intelligence or intelligence that has not evolved past a certain low level.

Now by saying that antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not, you are essentially stating that humans have devolved below the level of instinct. And if they have devolved below that level, then two things:

First, the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level.

Secondly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, then antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans.

Thirdly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, and antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans, then maybe some beings are not as highly developed and rational as they have presumed themselves to be. "

And the above was posted by one of the highly developed animals, now which is it? An antelope or human?


Instinct: An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

Intelligence: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I have a cat named Tiger...

He's not dead though. lain:

Depends on what type of “dead” you are referring to. And depends on where you are referring to.

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

MOM isn’t led by feelings and emotions. She will leave that up to you because that seems to be more in line with you and the rest. :dog:

 

[Town Heretic]

Depends on what type of “dead” you are referring to.

Hmmm, types of dead there are? (sorry, just turned Star Wars off for a moment)

And depends on where you are referring to.

This isn't another Alabama crack, is it? :shocked:

MOM isn’t led by feelings and emotions. She will leave that up to you because that seems to be more in line with you and the rest. :dog:

Well, your posts have ruled out rationality and you've just left off emotions...so what would that leave? :think:

:idea: You're lastoneislefty in disguise, aren't you? Come on, come on, out with it.

Let's hear the voices in your head in full bloom.

Relax MOM, consider your leg stretched into infinity. Did I sound remotely emotionally invested in this topic? Well...there's my avatar.

He's not dead either (though he does seem dizzy---watch it!) lain:

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don't think it's a matter of being "innocent", or punishment for a morally-errant tiger. It's a matter of practicality. The humans basically *had* to kill the tiger, because it would have been unethical to allow it to continue at the zoo or any other zoo (even if it wasn't displayed, as it could attack a zookeeper), and also to release it into the wild where it couldn't properly fend for itself.

It was reported that it had already attacked a zookeeper in the past.

There was really no other solution.

Actually, just like they had chosen to keep the tiger after its last incident, they could have chosen to continue to keep it. Some people here would have loved if they had not killed it.

I find it sad, but necessary, that the tiger was killed.

~SP

At least you haven’t allowed your feelings and emotions to cloud your judgment. That is always a good sign in Life.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I'd like to see MindOverMatter back up her statement that "Some people believe that it was wrong to kill the tiger." I don't think anybody in this thread has stated that it was wrong to kill the tiger. Many have made the argument that it was unfortunate that the tiger had to be killed.

1. Post # 8

2. Post # 40


3. Post # 43

4. Post # 71

5. Post # 76

6. Post * 95

7. Post # 110

8. Post # 135

9. Post # 144

10. Post # 408

 

[icilian fenner]

7. Post # 110

Red didn't say the tiger shouldn't have been killed, he said that it was innocent. He didn't go on to say that innocent animals shouldn't be killed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I haven't seen anyone claim it was wrong to kill the tiger. Unfortunate, sad, yes, but not wrong. It had to be done.

~SP

Well then you are not paying attention to the thread. Many of the others believe it but they don’t want to come out and say it. Instead, they have chosen the route of insinuation. On the other hand, only Lightbringer has the guts to come out and say it. MOM has to respect him for that.

>>>Lightbringer Post # 408

 

[MindOverMatter]

I think it was wrong to kill the Tiger!

And so, you would have liked that the tiger remain alive so that it could kill again when the next opportunity arrives?

We (humans) captured this animal, placed it in a cage for our viewing pleasure and then could not live up to the responsibilities of ownership.

And so you feel that that inability to live up to the responsibilities of ownership, gives the tiger the right to break one of the Laws of the land? And mind you, not only break one of the Laws of the land, but break it and get away with it?

Hate to break this news to you Lightbringer, but the failure to live up to the responsibilities of ownership, does not excuse someone or something from suffering the consequences of its actions. For example: The owner of a dog who fails to lock his or her fence, does not keep the dog from suffering the consequences of running out into the middle of a busy street. Once the dog runs into that busy street, the owners irresponsibility does not keep it from getting hit.

And now you are trying to hold this animal to the responsibility of human rules of morality?

Yes.

The animal was put down out of fear. The fear of, since it has tasted human blood, it is a man eater. Oh so scary!

Correct MOM if she’s wrong but one of your main assertions is that the tiger killed because it felt a threat. In other words, the tiger killed a young man out of fear. And now you want to argue that it is wrong to put down the tiger out of fear. And mind you, that that is not the sole reason that the tiger was killed. Lest you have forgotten, the tiger did kill a person and mauled some others.

So, the tiger was not only “put down out of fear.” MOM knows that you all tend to forget that people were involved in this scenario. And because that is the case, the tiger was also put down because it had killed someone.

We have an animal that is caged, but, since some fool,

1. Didn't build his cage adequately,

2. Another fool taunted a creature that responds through instinct.

Gets out and kills a human being!

And so that totally absolves the tiger? So Lightbringer, question? What is the difference between this tiger and an inmate who escapes from jail and goes on a killing spree? Do the authorities not have the right to shoot and kill that individual so that he or she does not kill anyone else?

Which leads us to #3,

3. We don't want some one pointing their finger at us and saying that we are responsible for this act due to our irresponsible thinking and planing when taking on the responsibility of animal ownership!

Who is arguing that humans aren’t partly responsible.

And any one that truly thinks otherwise should direct this Tigers lawyer to the animal court system, so that since we are holding the Tiger to our rules of morality, it should be afforded the same rights to defense that we enjoy, the right to plead our case before a jury of our peers!

And you consider yourself to be an intelligent and rational human being? So you want to afford a lower animal and beast the same rights as highly developed humans. That is quite laughable. What kind of nonsense are you smoking? What intelligent human being in their right mind, would allow a lower animal and beast to enjoy all of the rights that he or she has worked hard to earn?

Human thought...at times it leaves a lot to be desired!:kookoo:

That’s what lower animals and beasts think. And so, you believe that much is to be desired from the thoughts of lower animals and beasts?

Grow up and accept the responsibilities of your actions!:idea:

Humans should be saying that to you and all of your lower companions.

 

[zoo22]

And now you are trying to hold this animal to the responsibility of human rules of morality?

Yes.

lain:

It's really kind of fascinating. Is anyone else fascinated?