Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
It's stupid policy. What part about wild animal do people not understand? Christ.....The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Huh? It attacked a person. Animals that attack people are put down. That's what you always do to them. The incident might have been avoidable and is hardly a great thing, sure, but once the animal has attacked and mauled a person, it's sleep-sleep time.Edi wrote:that did nothing wrong?
I agree. I would probably do the same thing, if it were attacking him at the time. However, I wouldn't go and shoot it if he was already released.Howedar wrote:A tiger harms my buddy. You're goddamn right I'd shoot it. It'd be the wrong thing to do, and I'd expect to be punished, but its what I'd do nonetheless.
Your usual shifting of the goals bullshit.Axis Kast wrote: All right, so the zoo had at least minimal quantities of veterinary supplies. That does prove that there was little to no danger of being injured while treating sick animals. I want you to explain to me, however, why trainers or zoo personnel are injured by animals if human contact never occurs.
The whole point of the smaller debate over whether the Iraqi zoo was well-equipped developed out of the question of whether the trainers would ever have physical contact with the animals that might result in the potential for aggressive behavior to manifest itself. In sickness was one possibility. That was proven irrelevant however by the fact that elephants in German zoos were put down for aggressive behavior. You’ll also note that a Pittsburgh zookeeper was crushed by an elephant while walking that animal. You cannot prove that there would never be an incident in which an unsafe situation could develop.I've just shown that they have what you implied they would not, and what is needed to safely handle animals.
I see you don’t read the arguments.As for your stupid point at the end....as you so aptly prove, fucking morons exist everywhere. Accidents do on occasion happen....such as for example shooting down british planes or blowing up british convoys....I mean, after all, incompetence couldnt possibly be a factor when things go wrong
This was very amusing. Thank you.Slartibartfast wrote:Maybe if the soldier had put his arm in a meat grinder, the other soldier would have shot it? After all, it's necessary to send a clear message to all the dangerous carnivores (and dangerous food processing appliance) that they must not stand in the way of freedom.
Actually, this tiger was part of the Weapons of Mass Destruction.
That's actually immaterial. If he shot it to get it to let go, then he could have just as easily fired a round in the air to draw its attention away from the soldier. If that didn't work, then I'd see justification for plugging the thing, but either way, hauling off and shooting it was not the right approach.Slartibartfast wrote:This is the only valid argument: If there is no immediate danger, you can shoot it because you ARE PISSED OFF AT IT. Because shooting it will MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. If it's a very sick dying animal that has been diagnosed no possible cure, you can kill it to put it ouf of its misery (if you happen to OWN that animal or find it in the wild) but the fact remains that either the soldier shot the animal to release its grip on his partner, or he shot it AFTERWARDS because he thought it was his GOD-GIVEN right.
Prove to me that wild animals in cages have no contact with human beings.It's not a fucking pet, it's a wild animal in a cage. Whether it fears human or not is irrelevant. Whether it can attack humans or not is irrelevant. Whether it eats human flesh or Fruit Loops is irrelevant.
The soldier in Baghdad made an off-the-cuff decision that was probably grounded more in drunken shock and rage than rational analysis. That doesn’t mean his solution wasn’t also favored by circumstance elsewhere.This is the only valid argument: If there is no immediate danger, you can shoot it because you ARE PISSED OFF AT IT. Because shooting it will MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. If it's a very sick dying animal that has been diagnosed no possible cure, you can kill it to put it ouf of its misery (if you happen to OWN that animal or find it in the wild) but the fact remains that either the soldier shot the animal to release its grip on his partner, or he shot it AFTERWARDS because he thought it was his GOD-GIVEN right.
In a national park, most animals therein never have contact with human beings.And Kast, there's a big difference between what happens in a national park as opposed to what happens in a zoo. In a national park, animals roam freely, while in a zoo, they do not. In a zoo, the human patrons are in full control of their interactions with the animal. They can either do the intelligent thing and not stick their hands into the cage, or they can be dumbshits and stick their hands in the cage.
Humans are in full control at zoos and yet – as I have proven – they are sometimes killed by aggressive animals?In a park, on the other hand, a bear can just wander up to a tent and start harassing people, which is why there is justification for putting it down if it does so and injures someone. In zoos, humans are in full control. In parks, they are not. If you get attacked by a bear in a park, that may be cause for concern over the bear that attacked you and justification for punishing it, but if you're so fucking stupid that you think it's a good idea to wave appendages around in close proximity to vicious predators, then the only animal that should be punished is you. The soldier deserved what he got.
The predator’s psychological barrier to aggression against humans was significantly eroded. Especially when considered in step with the situation in Baghdad as it then stood, shooting the animal after the fact would not have been at all out of line with logical consequential behavior.Your argument is pure fucking slipperly slope bullshit....some stupid motherfucker gets bitten by a large predator through his own stupidity, ergo the predator, despite not being a fucking threat to anyone not dumb enough to stick parts of themselves into the cage, should be killed.
Wonderful lack of logic.
Also, elephants are not carnivores, therefore it is not perfectly normal behaviour for them to try and eat things that annoy them so dont drag them into this bullshit.
Wild animals under extreme stress that have attacked human beings? Yes, I do.So Kast you now think all animals in captivity should be shot?
I cannot garuntee that the cockerspaniel up the street will not bite some kid if he pokes it in the eye with his finger, so lets kill all pets too....
Axis Kast wrote:Prove to me that wild animals in cages have no contact with human beings.
Code: Select all
Wild
Animal
|
v
------- <--- cage
| W |
| |
| | H <--- human being
| |
-------
It'll be a pleasure to tear you a new asshole over this issue, you fuckwit. First off, you're making hasty generalization here by demanding that we prove to you that any wild animal of any type must have no contact whatsoever with humans, when the subject of the thread is actually dangerous predators specifically, and to a lesser extent other animals that while not predators, may be dangerous.Axis Kast wrote:Prove to me that wild animals in cages have no contact with human beings.Slartibartfast wrote: It's not a fucking pet, it's a wild animal in a cage. Whether it fears human or not is irrelevant. Whether it can attack humans or not is irrelevant. Whether it eats human flesh or Fruit Loops is irrelevant.
Fuck off, as you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. The animals kept in zoos are not made docile, they are left to be as their nature dictates rather than domesticated. Some of the animals, such as deer, get halfway domesticated as a consequence of their constant proximity to humans. Others, such as bears and great cats are never domesticated just by proximity if they're raised by others of their kind, as happens in zoos. You'd need to hand rear and train one from infancy to get it domesticated, and it'd still be dangerous, just less so than a wild one (and more so in some respects), and yet other animals are never domesticated and always dangerous (e.g. crocodiles).Axis Kast wrote:Whether an animal fears and can attack human beings or not is irrelevant to debate over animal aggression? Fear of – or tacit “respect” of – humans by animals is absolutely central to their being made docile in zoos.
The first soldier in the Baghdad zoo acted like a fucking idiot and deserved what happened to him, and the one who shot the tiger acted like a fucking idiot and deserves to be chewed out, demoted, and posted in some weather station on Antarctica for the rest of his career for being an absolute fuckwit.Axis Kast wrote:The soldier in Baghdad made an off-the-cuff decision that was probably grounded more in drunken shock and rage than rational analysis. That doesn’t mean his solution wasn’t also favored by circumstance elsewhere.
True, because the animals have enough territory to roam and are by nature inclined to avoid humans, who they mostly see as a threat. If you've ever observed animals in nature, you'll know that if it moves and isn't prey, they will get the fuck away from it because chances are that it's something that eats them.Axis Kast wrote:In a national park, most animals therein never have contact with human beings.
Human fault has everything to do with it, you fuckwit. Responsibility for events must be determining factor when considering what consequences are applied. If my neighbor's dog bites me without provocation, I'll demand medical costs and that they keep the animal under control and not let it near people and I'll be pissed off as fuck about it, but if I go and kick the dog, I'll have only myself to blame for any and all consequences I get (including being bitten, getting charged with cruelty toward an animal and fined, and needing to pay for a doctor to patch me up). You can take your crowings about accepting concessions and shove them up your voluminous ass, because you have won nothing, and just keep shifting goalposts with every fucking post. Fuck off.Axis Kast wrote:Human fault has nothing to do with this argument. It still results in the same consequence whether or not it was stupid. You’ve been repeating yourself endlessly, just like everybody else in this thread who can’t distance themselves from the subject of whose responsibility this whole situation actually happens to be. Concession accepted.
Elephants are a rather specific and extraordinary example that cannot be applied across the board. I happened to read through most of those links you provided, and in almost all cases that an elephant was put down, it was demonstrably unable to function in any capacity in a zoo (even with other elephants), or just became too dangerous to handle (like great cats). An elephant that is too dangerous to handle has to be put down because there is no way to move it from place to place or give it necessary attention without sedating it first, and often sedation makes the needed procedures impossible, so there's an unresolvable catch-22 situation. This is not the case with most animals.Axis Kast wrote:Humans are in full control at zoos and yet – as I have proven – they are sometimes killed by aggressive animals?
Fuck off, Kast. The tiger's default psychological condition is that it's going to bite and claw any non-tiger that gets within its reach, and if it doesn't, it's an exceptional case. Everyone knows this except you, and I'm going to accept your concession right now.Axis Kast wrote:What does the soldier’s deserving punishment have to do with the tiger’s psychological condition? I’ve seen the same argument fifty times. And I accept your concession for the fiftieth time.
By human actions, fuckwit. In the wild, animals tend to avoid things that are not their prey, or chase it off if they think they can, and a tiger would either avoid a human or kill it (e.g. in defense of its cubs). In the zoo it has no option to avoid humans, so it gets used to their proximity (which helps lower its tension somewhat), but because it can't avoid, it will use aggression instead (something it might choose to do in the wild as well). You have no fucking point here, except to display your stunning ignorance for the world to see.Axis Kast wrote:The predator’s psychological barrier to aggression against humans was significantly eroded.
Only if one subscribes to the tortured distortion of logic you use, moron.Axis Kast wrote:Especially when considered in step with the situation in Baghdad as it then stood, shooting the animal after the fact would not have been at all out of line with logical consequential behavior.
Key word is sustained in the elephant instances. When the elephants failed to learn from punishment and were dangerous, no other option, but they weren't killed off the cuff on the basis of a single incident. It is also normal behavior for tigers to attack when provoked if they can't avoid humans, and sticking your hand in the cage is fucking provoking the thing, especially if it's hungry. And they would be kept in zoos because people want to see them.Axis Kast wrote:Elephants aren’t carnivores, but the reinforcement of bad behavior by lack of punishment is unacceptable most of the time. In two cases I posted, elephants were put down for sustained aggressive activity. If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.
Even when the attack was completely the result of the human provoking the animal? You've got some really fucked up values. If you apply the same logic more broadly, then a person defending his home from burglars should be killed because he attacked other humans under extreme stress.Axis Kast wrote:Wild animals under extreme stress that have attacked human beings? Yes, I do.Keevan Colton wrote: So Kast you now think all animals in captivity should be shot?
I cannot garuntee that the cockerspaniel up the street will not bite some kid if he pokes it in the eye with his finger, so lets kill all pets too....
And your average zoo tiger in its cage is not unattended and no danger to competent keepers, nor danger to zoo visitors who observe come common sense by not sticking their body parts in its cage. Concession accepted.Axis Kast wrote:Many living thing is dangerous if left unattended, although your average cockerspaniel is no danger to competent adults.
Here it is: irrefutable evidence that Axis Kast has no brain. At all.Vympel's Bitch wrote:If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.
Darwin would be proud. If the bear had come onto a camp in an urban area, that's bad. But once on their turf, it's every man for himself.Vympel wrote:Does anyone remember the famous Bear incident captured on cam corder in the US?
"Somebody get a gun! Get a gun! Tranquilizer gun!"
(the Bear was mauling some dumbass)
It's amazing to see how far he'll go to avoid admitting error, isn't it?Slartibartfast wrote:Here it is: irrefutable evidence that Axis Kast has no brain. At all.Vympel's Bitch wrote:If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.
Bullet budget too low to shoot the campers?The Yosemite Bear wrote:yup, we had to kill a bear over here a couple of years ago because she was becomming too agressive and destructive to human property after her cub was stoned to death by campers....
But they're not caged up either. Thanks for completely evading the point.Axis Kast wrote:In a national park, most animals therein never have contact with human beings.
ROTFLMAO!!Human fault has nothing to do with this argument. It still results in the same consequence whether or not it was stupid. You’ve been repeating yourself endlessly, just like everybody else in this thread who can’t distance themselves from the subject of whose responsibility this whole situation actually happens to be. Concession accepted.
Name an instance in a zoo where humans have been killed by obeying safety margins in a zoo and keeping a safe distance from the animal that wasn't due to a zookeeper's incompetence in accidentally letting the animal loose.Humans are in full control at zoos and yet – as I have proven – they are sometimes killed by aggressive animals?
Who fucking care about the tiger's psychological condition? It's a fucking wild, undomesticated animal!! It's psychological condition is "instinct"!What does the soldier’s deserving punishment have to do with the tiger’s psychological condition? I’ve seen the same argument fifty times. And I accept your concession for the fiftieth time.