Guys... TOL has an ignore feature. If there is a person you don't like, nor wish to read their posts just place them on ignore. Thanks! :up:
Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
noguru
Well-known member
I think Drbrumley is trying to point out that there is a reason for any attack. It is just that as humans we might not understand the reason.
Did the tiger eat the arm? A tiger uses the same tools for hunting that it uses for self-defense.
Yes... in the brain of the animal a decision is made to attack that is obvious. Animals are not puppets being moved around by invisible forces (unless they are Calvinist animals). So yes there is some reason, some type of trigger for any attack. When I said "no reason" I suppose I should have said "no good reason", but even that doesn't seem exactly right.
noguru
Well-known member
Well if you look back at some of my previous posts, you can see that animals attack for one or both of two reasons; out of hunger, or out of self defense. Generally an animal kept in a zoo is fed well enough so that no attacks are the result of hunger. That is if they have competent biologists that know how much to feed them. That really leaves only self-defense as the "trigger" for such attacks. Now understanding what threatens an animal is a bit more complex than knowing how much to feed it.
MindOverMatter
New member
And this is what happens when you decide to raise a generation that doesn’t understand that there are severe consequences for foolish and stupid actions.
I don't agree that there are only 2 reasons as to why an animal attacks.
noguru
Well-known member
Anger is simply self-defense (or in the case of parenting it is discipline). Attacks out of boredom and play are manifestations of the instinctual drive behind either self-defense or hunger. It is obvious when an animal is being playful out of boredom. There are specific aggressive signs that are not displayed.
Animals with a simpler nervous system like fish and reptiles very rarely if ever attack out of play. That is a behavior that is distinct to mammals and perhaps some birds. Although there is also some newer research that points to cephalopods (octopus, squid...) exhibiting similar behavior.
Also you should be careful not to anthromorphisize animal behavior too much. These latest cartoon movies that give animals the same array of emotions that humans have is misleading.
MindOverMatter
New member
So two people are killed and while one of the deaths is constantly mentioned, the other is not. And your interpretation or conclusion is that the person who is not mentioned, is cared for just as much as the person whose death is constantly referred to? How does that work? And lets not forget that the person who we are speaking of, has dedicated his life to saving and preserving lower animals.
And MOM guesses that it wouldn’t make any sense to be more interested and familiar with the humans who themselves are on the verge of a serious global decimation. Or maybe, he shouldn’t be more interested and familiar with humans who hold they key to stopping the global decimation of the tigers. That doesn’t make much sense does it?
Well, after you look at all the surrounding evidence, one would have to say that that assumption is probably accurate.
So, are you saying that you have the same level of concern for the loss of a human life and the loss of a lower animal?
I agree with your disagreement.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree with your disagreement.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree with noguru. :freak:
Oh geez.......
Whatever happened in this scenario the tiger is free from blame, it doesn't need 'defending' and nor would any other animal in this situation
'anthropomorphising' human attributes to an animal in the 'real world' is ridiculous, that much is true whether the human victims were guilty of behaving like drunken louts or not,
Animals are not subject to some moral code, if they were we'd be able to prosecute black widow spiders for 'quick' divorces plus cannibalism along with the audacity to bite human beings unfortunate enough to be in their space....
and I say this with a firm belief that the loss of human life in this situation is tragic, these youngsters might have acted like juveniles if the source is correct but at such a young age it's not exactly unique - and I doubt most of us, if we're honest, haven't done some really dumb things at that age but lived to tell the tale.....
Whatever happened in this scenario the tiger is free from blame, it doesn't need 'defending' and nor would any other animal in this situation
'anthropomorphising' human attributes to an animal in the 'real world' is ridiculous, that much is true whether the human victims were guilty of behaving like drunken louts or not,
Animals are not subject to some moral code, if they were we'd be able to prosecute black widow spiders for 'quick' divorces plus cannibalism along with the audacity to bite human beings unfortunate enough to be in their space....
and I say this with a firm belief that the loss of human life in this situation is tragic, these youngsters might have acted like juveniles if the source is correct but at such a young age it's not exactly unique - and I doubt most of us, if we're honest, haven't done some really dumb things at that age but lived to tell the tale.....
Perhaps, none of which should be 'morally' applied to an animal however.....
Exactly!!! I am glad you agree that a tiger isn't really the "biggest victim".
Yes, I do agree that it wasn't, the biggest culprit in this scenario is human negligence from what I can see and one reason why I'm no fan of having animals in enclosed spaces (which zoos for the most part are)
Ahh.... evil zoos! :doh:
One way or another the humans are at fault. :chuckle:
Liberals hate humans and love animals.
