Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[Caille]

Those voices I mentioned...So do you read palms as well as hearts, MOM? :think:
you're hallucinating
Can you guess what I'm insinuating? You'll have to read between the lines, I suppose.

Pretty silly arguing with a mind-reader, isn't it?

 

[Caille]

Because you are actually using a higher level of intelligence and reason. Those who seek equality with lower animals and beasts generally don’t see eye to eye with those who use a higher level of intelligence and reason. This is because once you begin to use those things at a higher level, you will no longer remain equal to the lower animals and beasts.



Would definitely like to see the person who is promoting hat the zoo was not partly responsible for the incident. Anybody with reasonable intelligence is aware that the zoo is partly responsible. So it is actually the other way around. Those who are without reasonable intelligence are of the mind that the tiger is not partly responsible for its actions.



That appears to be his proposal.




Maybe they should change it from stressing human protection to stressing animal protection and recapturing while ignoring human protection.



Those who wish to be equal to lower animals and beasts will tell you that it was stressing the wrong thing. They will insist that the officers should have had an assessment that stressed animal protection and recapturing.



What is appropriate is subjective and therefore is modified or affected by your personal views, experience, position, and or background. In this case, you may view the killing of tiger by the officers as appropriate. But on the other hand, those who are the champions of lower animal equality, and other lower animals and beasts, will view such an action as inappropriate. It depends on who or what you are.



It appears that way. After all, he did state that it was wrong to kill the tiger. So in light of the fact that the tiger had killed a person, mauled others, and was in the process of harming others, and that Lightbringer was still able to arrive at that conclusion, then one must assume that he believes that protecting human life in that situation was and is a wrong decision.



Judging from the info, they probably were.



Very true, but most of those who are in here are governed and led by their emotions and feelings. So he’s in with familiar company.

Why are you answereing, point for point, a post I made directly to another poster?

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Cont

You commonly put words in my mouth or twist the meanings of my posts.

Where? Please present the postings to back up your accusations.

You commonly make absurd arguments to which there is no answer because there's no basis in reality.

Where? Please present the postings to back up your assertions.

Secondly, in case you are not aware, there is an answer for every question.

Thirdly, in case you are not aware here is another piece of information: Because one cannot think outside of Overall Reality, everything is based somewhere in reality.

There is no convincing you.

… with prejudiced and faulty and logic.

You're happy to argue in circles and rely on false assertions and twisted logic to back yourself.

Again, please present the postings to back up your assertions. Without any proof, you and some of the others constantly make these vain and empty assertions. Now what other form of life does that behavior remind you of?

Now, to show you how it is done, MOM will bring up a false assertion that you made to back yourself. Do you remember in Hocus Focus where you twice made the false assertion that the young Saudi girls lawyer was whipped with 200 lashes?

Johana’s False Assertions Hocus Focus POST# 248 and POST# 333

MOM questioning her about those False Assertions POST # 355 and POST #417.

If there's something wrong with you where you can't see what you're doing then I'm sorry for you. If not - grow up. You're being dishonest, frustrating and irrational.

Again, please present the postings to back up your assertions.

 

[johana]

Well then you are not referring to highly rational intelligent mature adults.

Secondly, you are not paying any attention to the world that you live in.




Okay, now please point to the thread where MOM has stated or even implied that “humans and tigers think in the same way. ” How about where MOM has said that both arrive at their conclusions through the exact same processes?

Please refer to POST # 511



Could, should, but you haven’t. Let’s not dwell on couldas, shouldas, and wouldas; instead, let us talk about what you have done. Waiting………



Could, should, but you haven’t. What’s stopping you? MOM would welcome a debate on the brains of each respective subjects.



For what is a good question; especially, when MOM has never stated or even implied that highly evolved humans and tigers think in the same way.



Where? Please present the postings to back up your assertions.

Secondly, your experts and the specialists that you so fervently speak of, are you sure that they are not compromised? Are you so positive that there are no PETA and ALF adherents who are scientists, doctors, and specialists? Are you 100% positive that the results of some of those animal researches were not colored by PETA or ALF sympathizers?
Cont…

Ascribing moral thought processes to a tiger is saying that a tiger has the ability to have these moral thought processes as humans do. It's not like you're simply dealing with a cultural difference here. You're dealing with a different species with a different brain that doesn't function in the same manner or level as a human brain.

Your last little comment about PETA is just nuts. (Ha! Like the rest of what you write isn't nuts. That one was a gift. I'm humouring you...) Remove the tin hat, sweetheart.

An adult would continue to love a person who beat them, abused them, encouraged others to abuse them? Perhaps this is the case with boys that torture animals, set fires and wet the bed but not with the great majority of people. Again, if you're unable to understand this, I pity you. If you're being purposefully obtuse- grow up. It's not clever.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is a pretty mild example of part of what I'm talking about.

And so MOM makes a statement about someone being privy to the information that she knows and that is supposed to mean exactly what?

By the way, are you privy to the information that MOM knows.

Are you a biologist?

The better question is, Are you?

Do you have any specialized training or experience that would mean that your expert opinion would trump that of those who have studied and trained in their field of expertise?

MOM should be asking you that question: So, do you have any specialized training or experience that would mean that your expert opinion would trump that of those among US who have studied and trained in their field of expertise?

Secondly, again, about your experts and the specialists that you so fervently speak of, are you so sure that they are not compromised? Are you so positive that there are no PETA and ALF adherents who are scientists, doctors, and specialists? Are you 100% positive that some of those animal researches--and for the fact of the matter other researches-- were not and are not colored by PETA or ALF sympathizers. Are you living so far in the illusion and has your mind become so compromised, that you have yet to conclude that this is reality?

Let MOM give you a little piece of information: In case you are not aware, there are scientists, doctors, researchers, lawyers, judges, etc.. who are members of PETA, ALF and other animal liberation organizations. Now, from that piece of information you may go back into you little illusory world and draw your own conclusions.

You fall back on - Oh! But I can think better than everybody else!

When and where did MOM fall back on this? Johana, please provide the postings to support all of your charges.

Outside of being an utterly narcissistic, egocentric world view, it's utterly, utterly wrong. You don't think better than everybody else. Your views, without the experience and training and expert knowledge are nothing but unfounded opinion.

Narcissistic, egocentric? Correct MOM if she’s wrong but aren’t you the one who wants to go around the whole world telling people how they should live? Aren’t you the one who wants to tell other nations how they should apply their LAW? Are you not the one who wants impose your manner of living on other nations? Aren’t you the one who believes that your way of living is so much better than everyone else’s? And you are the one who wants to label someone narcissistic and egocentric? Honey, you better look in the mirror.

If you like, MOM can provide the postings, or in this instance the thread?

 

[MindOverMatter]

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?

No it is not out of the question. Lower animals and beasts are able to strategize. In fact, if they couldn’t, most of them would not be able to catch their prey.

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

No, MOM highlighted the correct definition. Did you notice the words “without involving reason” Look again: 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

Now, if instinct is really a “response to environmental stimuli without involving reason,” then you have been contradicting yourself. This is because if instinct does not involve any reason, then how can you continuously state that the reason for the tigers attack, was due to the fact that the tiger perceived the young men as “threats?” In other words, if there was no reason involved in the tiger’s response or attack, then how can you state that the young men’s actions, were the reason behind the attack? Or how can you even state the tigers generally attack for two reasons?

Again, according to the definition, instinct is a response to stimuli that does not involve reason. Think! Think! Think!

Noguru’s Statements of the reason for the tiger’s attack:

Noguru Post # 114

Noguru Post # 119

Noguru Post #217

Noguru Post #298

I have studied this subject in detail.

Okay…and you are saying this because you believe that MOM hasn’t?

Secondly, what about the contradictions? You have been studying this subject in detail, but when one looks, many contradictions still remain. Why?

I suggest that you absorb the information you read instead of unquestionably thinking it is support for your position.

That is very good advice, so let MOM give it back to you: MOM suggests that you absorb the information you read instead of unquestionably thinking that it supports your position.
Cont…

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Cont

Animals are not completely instinctual, and I never said they were, but their instinctual drive motivates those other processes.

So, how does that work…you know the animals are not completely instinctual “but their instinctual drives motivates those other processes?” How does that happen? How is that possible? If your instinct is the source of your instinctual drives, and those instinctual drives motivate all of your other processes, then how are you not completely instinctual?

In other words, if their processes are being moved by instinctual drives and those instinctual drives are the result of instinct, then aren’t animals completely instinctual?

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.

Please refer back to the previous question.

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

You can’t realize something that you don’t believe. To the tiger there was nothing wrong with killing the individual. This is because the tiger’s moral belief is based on a Law that tells it that murdering is what it is supposed to do in that situation. In other words, from his perspective, he is not the one who is morally deficient.

Yes, and it could be that you are wrong.

You mean kinda like when you were inaccurately stating that the tiger was not a victim? >>>Noguru POST # 89 and >>>POST #92

And of course MOM tried to remind you that the tiger was still a victim. MindOverMatter >>>POST # 266 and >>>POST # 270

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

Are you speaking from experience? And if you are, why would you do something like that Noguru? What were you trying to achieve by doing that? And are you doing that now?

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

What, do you not see the mounting evidence that is surrounding you? Do you not have any eyes? Look, the current evidence says that the humans of the earth are endangered.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

Sophisticated according to what? Even single cell organisms are quite sophisticated. >>>Tiny organisms remember the way to food

So which organisms or animals are you referring to?

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.

Can you please explain to Us how this relates to the issue which you are responding to? What does this current explanation have to do with the tiger’s desire or motive?

Secondly, maybe one day you will find out that even single cell organisms have all these things that you are talking about.

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

And what does this “pretty sophisticated nervous system” have to do with the fact that without direct access to people or potential victims, the tiger was unable to fulfill its desire to kill? What does this have to do with the fact that the tiger’s desire or motive was negated because there appeared to be no opportunity? What does this have to do with the fact that when the opportunity was made available, the tiger was able to move to fulfill the desire that was there all along?

Noguru, we were discussing opportunity and desire. We were not debating the tiger’s nervous system.
This current posting was about the tigers ability to fulfill its desire without an opportunity. This other information that you are posting has nothing to do with this current posting. MOM doesn’t care how big your Medulla Oblongata is. Your Medulla Oblongata can be as big as a truck, but it is of no good to you without an opportunity.

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.

No, you seem to have a very dim understanding of this logic: If even the most simplest organisms cannot react without an opportunity, then common sense tells you that opportunity is one of the reasons why those organisms are reacting. If you take away opportunity, and a certain action is no longer exhibited as a result of that removal, then common sense should tell you that opportunity was a reason for that action. But yet, you want to dismiss opportunity as not being a reason. Why?

Lower animals should not be judged on the same moral standards as humans. They are incapable of moral thought.

Reference POST# 511

There are some humans that are incapable of moral thought.

And which humans are these? Which humans 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.

And what is appropriate?

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

Okay, what is all this ballyhoo about frontal lobe size? Why are you so enamored with the size of your frontal lobe? Why are you always bringing up the size of your frontal lobe?

 

[noguru]

Mom, at this point I believe that discussion with you is futile. I don't even understand the points you are making. This could be because of my lack of intellect, or it could be because you are not saying anything. I have lost all interest in continuing this discussion. Please take your brilliant ideas and publish them for peer review. Maybe you will get somewhere in that arena.

I have never denied that opportunity is necessary for anything to happen. This is saying absolutely nothing because it is true for everything. Your insistence that opportunity is somehow a valid answer is nonsensical because since without it nothing would happen, then it can be removed from consideration as a distinguishing factor.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

So, how definite of a factor? How big of a factor is this “individual make up?” Is the difference in the “individual make up” of each tiger so huge that it becomes the main factor that will determine their behavior? Or is the “individual make” up a much smaller factor in that area?

Now, the reason why MOM asks this, is because from your earlier comments in POST#305, you made it appear as if the “individualized makeup” of each animal was such a factor that it would make it very difficult to predict their behaviors within a given environment.

Noguru's Quotes POST #305
1.

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

2.

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.

I have observed occasinal snakes or fish that behave differently than expected.

Anomalies or were there other factors involved?

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.

Now, during this time, is the animal in its fight or flight mode? In other words, does the animal enter the fight or flight mode before or after it has reached this threshold?

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

So, is the nature of an animal based on its sophistication? Does the sophistication of an animal change its nature.

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

So if learned behavior does not change the essential nature of lower animals, then how can you state that it is difficult to predict how a wild animal will react to certain environmental stimuli? (Noguru POST#305) If an animal has the same nature after all of its learning , then how is it difficult to predict how it will react to certain environmental stimuli? Isn’t an animal’s physical constitution or drives its primary controlling force? Or is the animal’s new learning its primary controlling force?

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.

Then the learning only succeeds in teaching the animal another way or method to obtain food?

Cont...

 

[Caille]

What, do you not see the mounting evidence that is surrounding you? Do you not have any eyes? Look, the current evidence says that the humans of the earth are endangered.

What "current evidence"?

Are human population numbers rising or falling?

 

[noguru]

So, how definite of a factor? How big of a factor is this “individual make up?” Is the difference in the “individual make up” of each tiger so huge that it becomes the main factor that will determine their behavior? Or is the “individual make” up a much smaller factor in that area?

Now, the reason why MOM asks this, is because from your earlier comments in POST#305, you made it appear as if the “individualized makeup” of each animal was such a factor that it would make it very difficult to predict their behaviors within a given environment.

Noguru's Quotes POST #305
1.


2.



Anomalies or were there other factors involved?





Now, during this time, is the animal in its fight or flight mode? In other words, does the animal enter the fight or flight mode before or after it has reached this threshold?



So, is the nature of an animal based on its sophistication? Does the sophistication of an animal change its nature.



So if learned behavior does not change the essential nature of lower animals, then how can you state that it is difficult to predict how a wild animal will react to certain environmental stimuli? (Noguru POST#305) If an animal has the same nature after all of its learning , then how is it difficult to predict how it will react to certain environmental stimuli? Isn’t an animal’s physical constitution or drives its primary controlling force? Or is the animal’s new learning its primary controlling force?



Then the learning only succeeds in teaching the animal another way or method to obtain food?

Cont...

Are you trying to exhaust me with questions? If you really need to understand all this perhaps you should do some research on your own. I don't seem to remember you paying tuition at my school.

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Cont From Post #531

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.

And MOM will repeat herself again: 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?

Secondly, Noguru, please show MOM where the greater level of individuality lies? It can be predicted that if we take 100 able bodied hungry trained or learned Sumatran tigers and allow you to run through the midst of them, all will try to devour you. Their learning or training will not keep them from trying to devour you. Their nature will almost guarantee that you will not escape alive. And the learning that was given unto them, will only help them in their efforts to catch you. In other words, by teaching the tiger, you have only succeeded in increasing its knowledge. And this increase does not change its nature. Instead, what you will now have is a “smarter” tiger with the same nature.

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.

Does being well-fed prevent the tiger’s feelings and emotions? Does the full stomach stop the tiger from following its feelings and emotions? Does the full stomach stop the tiger’s fight or flight response?

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.

How about a well-fed tiger who felt a threat? Don’t forget to include that point. So is this particular tiger behavior out of the ordinary for a well-fed tiger who was under a constant sense of threat?

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.

So, you believe that even though it is has been noted that 20-25 percent of people are known to taunt animals at the zoo, this tiger was not in a constant state of agitation. Instead, it just happened to feel a sense of threat and therefore only became agitated with the taunts of these particular guys?

You know that that would be quite an interesting conclusion. Because if that is what you have concluded, then what you are saying is that the tiger was able to tell the difference between the taunts of the other zoo visitors and these three guys? And because it was able to do so, it was never bothered or never felt a threat from the taunts of the other 20-25 % of people who were found to taunt zoo animals during their visits?

 

[noguru]

…Cont From Post #531



And MOM will repeat herself again: 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?

Secondly, Noguru, please show MOM where the greater level of individuality lies? It can be predicted that if we take 100 able bodied hungry trained or learned Sumatran tigers and allow you to run through the midst of them, all will try to devour you. Their learning or training will not keep them from trying to devour you. Their nature will almost guarantee that you will not escape alive. And the learning that was given unto them, will only help them in their efforts to catch you. In other words, by teaching the tiger, you have only succeeded in increasing its knowledge. And this increase does not change its nature. Instead, what you will now have is a “smarter” tiger with the same nature.



Does being well-fed prevent the tiger’s feelings and emotions? Does the full stomach stop the tiger from following its feelings and emotions? Does the full stomach stop the tiger’s fight or flight response?



How about a well-fed tiger who felt a threat? Don’t forget to include that point. So is this particular tiger behavior out of the ordinary for a well-fed tiger who was under a constant sense of threat?




So, you believe that even though it is has been noted that 20-25 percent of people are known to taunt animals at the zoo, this tiger was not in a constant state of agitation. Instead, it just happened to feel a sense of threat and therefore only became agitated with the taunts of these particular guys?

You know that that would be quite an interesting conclusion. Because if that is what you have concludes, then what you are saying is that the tiger was able to tell the difference between the taunts of the other zoo visitors and these three guys? And because it was able to do so, it was never bothered or never felt a threat from the taunts of the other 20-25 % of people who were found to taunt zoo animals during their visits?

Have you seen recordings of the taunts from other zoo visitors? Are you certain that those taunts were exactly like the ones made by these three people? Are you the mother of one of these taunters?

I have been very clear. I do not know everything in regard to animals and behavior. What is your point? Where do you think I am inaccurate? Enough with the barrage of questions, please be specific or stop this nonsense.

My patience with you is growing very thin. You have not made a single point that I can tell, yet you continue with these questions. You are very annoying. Are trying to taunt me? All you are doing is making yourself look very foolish. I am beginning to agree with many of the other members here who find you to be wacky. You must be a joy at parties. I bet people line up to discuss things with you.

 

[noguru]

No, MOM highlighted the correct definition. Did you notice the words “without involving reason” Look again: 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

Now, if instinct is really a “response to environmental stimuli without involving reason,” then you have been contradicting yourself. This is because if instinct does not involve any reason, then how can you continuously state that the reason for the tigers attack, was due to the fact that the tiger perceived the young men as “threats?” In other words, if there was no reason involved in the tiger’s response or attack, then how can you state that the young men’s actions, were the reason behind the attack? Or how can you even state the tigers generally attack for two reasons?

Again, according to the definition, instinct is a response to stimuli that does not involve reason. Think! Think! Think!

I disagree with the definition you used. I think the one I pointed out is more appropriate.

At any rate the term "reason" as it is used in the first definition is not the same as "a reason". You seem to be stuck on that distinction. Have you stopped taking your medication again?

 

[MindOverMatter]

You're stepping into dangerous territory. lain:

...Definitions.

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

You’ve been in dangerous territory. And definitely don’t pull out the dictionary because we don’t ever want to really use that. Some of Us just want to be free to redefine words according to how they see fit. :devil:

 

[MindOverMatter]

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?

Is that all that you can add to the discussion? :rotfl: With so many things to discuss, the only thing that you can do is rearrange the letters in MOM’s name. That is genius. Hey, keep going. Don’t let MOM stop you. Go ahead and do what you do best.:thumb:

 

[Caille]

I'm starting to grow hair on my back that's more interesting than you, Inverted Marmot.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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?

Who or what isn’t born to survive? Don’t you know that everyone is born to survive. So does the fact that a lower animal is born to survive, excuse it from receiving the consequences of its actions? Does it excuse humans from suffering the consequences of their actions? In the eyes of the tiger, does that excuse, excuse the human?

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!

Point proven: learning does not change the nature of a lower animal or beast.

Secondly, are you not paying attention? There is no such thing as no reason. Everything kills for a reason. Even your little buddy the tiger had a reason.

Now you are talking about domesticated animals, totally different situation.

How? Does domestication eliminate the essential nature of a lower animal or beast?

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.

Does changing the social circle of the domesticated lower animal eliminate its essential nature?

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

So, in essence you are saying that domestication and learning does not eliminate the nature of the lower animal?

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

Have to agree, the tiger’s reaction was very predictable. This is because it still had the same nature. Therefore, in reality, the only thing that was missing was the opportunity to exercise that nature. So when that opportunity became visible, the tiger did what came naturally.

Cont...