US soldier kills Baghdad tiger

View threads from the forum's history which have been deemed important, noteworthy, or which do a good job of covering frequently raised issues.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
TrailerParkJawa
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by TrailerParkJawa »

Both soldiers should be disciplined for unprofessional behavior. I cant blame the other soldier for shooting the tiger, probably cause it had its mouth around his buddys hand. Still, does not excuse getting drunk and walking into a tiger cage.

As for putting down animals after attacking humans, it is not uncommon to let an animal live when it was the person who invaded the animals space.
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Edi wrote:that did nothing wrong?
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.
Jesus Marina, next time you are at a zoo, I dare you to play with the nerest tiger and see what it does. The animal is a tiger not a family pet, you cannot expect it to acct like one. There is also the intelligence factor of these soldiers, pair of fucking morons.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Jesus Marina, next time you are at a zoo, I dare you to play with the nerest tiger and see what it does. The animal is a tiger not a family pet, you cannot expect it to acct like one. There is also the intelligence factor of these soldiers, pair of fucking morons.
Marina is correct. As she admitted, the incident is extremely unfortunate. That does not however preclude normal animal control measures.

Animals that become too used to humans are a grave danger. Especially a tiger such as the one in this situation, probably freightened out of its mind by the events of the past several months and enjoying only sub-standard care.
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12458
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Edi »

Kast, you're an utter fucking moron too. If some burglar invades somebody's home and gets shot, do we put down the homeowner because he is a dnager to other people? If you stick your hand in a tiger cage, you deserve to have it bitten off, because these wild and [/i]feral[/i] animals never have gotten used to humans, that's the reason they are caged and there are warnings that they are dangerous.

Seriously, I've never seen a fuckwit as dense as you are, except Darkstar, but he at least limits his idiocy to fictional issues, whereas you don't.

Edi
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Kast, you're an utter fucking moron too. If some burglar invades somebody's home and gets shot, do we put down the homeowner because he is a dnager to other people? If you stick your hand in a tiger cage, you deserve to have it bitten off, because these wild and [/i]feral[/i] animals never have gotten used to humans, that's the reason they are caged and there are warnings that they are dangerous.

Seriously, I've never seen a fuckwit as dense as you are, except Darkstar, but he at least limits his idiocy to fictional issues, whereas you don't.
A homeowner is a human being capable of rational thought. Would you presume to be able to say the same of a caged animal as well? :roll:

A wild animal that has bitten, attacked, or killed a human gains a level of desensitization that makes it more likely to strike at a later date, even assuming only limited provocation. It becomes less safe. Period.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Axis Kast wrote:
Jesus Marina, next time you are at a zoo, I dare you to play with the nerest tiger and see what it does. The animal is a tiger not a family pet, you cannot expect it to acct like one. There is also the intelligence factor of these soldiers, pair of fucking morons.
Marina is correct. As she admitted, the incident is extremely unfortunate. That does not however preclude normal animal control measures.
Actually, there have been many cases in which animals at zoos which kill people entering their cages are unpunished.

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ ... eeper.html
http://www.bigcats.org/abc/attacks/vienna.html
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ ... icago.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/1 ... 21027.html
(actually, they don't explicitly say whether anything would be done to the animals after this particular incident, but I thought I'd post it because it's fucking hilarious to see the sheer level of stupidity exhibited by the idiot in the first article).

Anyway, the point remains: if a human foolishly enters a predatory animal's space and dies as a result, the animal is usually left alone. The animals are usually put down when they are deemed a threat to the general population.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Exceptions to the rule, Mike.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Axis Kast wrote:Exceptions to the rule, Mike.
Do you have some source for this "rule" that zoo animals are always killed when they maul a human who foolishly invades his space?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/getaways/ ... ild20.html
Such contact can cause animals to lose their innate fear of humans. These desensitized animals -- including many National Park and campground bears -- are widely considered the most dangerous animals of all.
This article confirms the theory: animals that attack experience desensitization to humans.


http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservatio ... 39184.html
About an hour after the attack, wildlife officials harpooned the male alligator, known as Mo-Jo by garden employees, said John Duncan, an officer with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Authorities shot the alligator and slit its stomach open, finding Goodman's arm inside. The arm was taken to Shands Hospital at the University of Florida, but doctors could not reattach it, botanical garden spokeswoman Barbara Bennett said.
An alligator was harpooned after attacking a human being.


http://www.jessleephotos.com/ysnp/wolves.html[/quote]
Those animals that continue to pose a threat to themselves or to humans may be translocated to other areas of the park, or even removed from the park ecosystem.
If you read the full article, there was one coyote attack resulting in a human death, and “aggressive behavior” can range from approach to attack. It can be inferred that this animals that actually attack humans directly are put down.


http://www.yellowstoneparktraveler.com/ ... life.shtml

The coup de grace. Listings of the consequences of animal behavior that include proof: attacking animals are generally put down.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29299
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

That's national parks. Mike said zoos.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

Axis Kast wrote:
Kast, you're an utter fucking moron too. If some burglar invades somebody's home and gets shot, do we put down the homeowner because he is a dnager to other people? If you stick your hand in a tiger cage, you deserve to have it bitten off, because these wild and [/i]feral[/i] animals never have gotten used to humans, that's the reason they are caged and there are warnings that they are dangerous.

Seriously, I've never seen a fuckwit as dense as you are, except Darkstar, but he at least limits his idiocy to fictional issues, whereas you don't.
A homeowner is a human being capable of rational thought. Would you presume to be able to say the same of a caged animal as well? :roll:

A wild animal that has bitten, attacked, or killed a human gains a level of desensitization that makes it more likely to strike at a later date, even assuming only limited provocation. It becomes less safe. Period.
A homeowner as a {supposidly) rational Human being would not keep a tiger as a pet. Zoo animals are not concidered pets and, for the most part, are not domesticated animals band are treated as such.

A wild animal in a zoo, particuly endangered ones are not nomally put down after a attack on a human because they are too rare to just do away with. And on that note a wild animal in a zoo is managed by trained, proffetional keepers not drunk idiot soldiers with firearms, there isa difference.
That tiger acted on instinct, exactly as it should. The soldiers acted out of drunken stupidity.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

That's national parks. Mike said zoos.
Comparing one to the other is benevolence on my part. Animals allowed to roam free in parks after attacks are afforded it because of space and environment - and even then many are killed. It is assumed, if they are released, that they will not come into direct contact with human beings again. The same cannot be said for animals kept in cages or confined habitats. You know this.
A homeowner as a {supposidly) rational Human being would not keep a tiger as a pet. Zoo animals are not concidered pets and, for the most part, are not domesticated animals band are treated as such.
A homeowner does not necessarily shoot anybody who comes toward his property. An animal is liable to do so regardless of the intent of the human being involved. Behavioral patterns differ severely. To compare the two is folly. But again, you know this.
A wild animal in a zoo, particuly endangered ones are not nomally put down after a attack on a human because they are too rare to just do away with. And on that note a wild animal in a zoo is managed by trained, proffetional keepers not drunk idiot soldiers with firearms, there isa difference.
That tiger acted on instinct, exactly as it should. The soldiers acted out of drunken stupidity.
Oh, I'll agree the tiger probably acted out of instinct. That doesn't mean its action won't have consequences however. The issue of desensitization remains. Even in open habitats, animals that attack humans who come too close - and all of the sources agree; it's virtually always the human's fault unless the animal is sick beforehand - are often put down. It's a matter of precluding a breakdown in psychological barriers.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Axis Kast wrote:
That's national parks. Mike said zoos.
Comparing one to the other is benevolence on my part. Animals allowed to roam free in parks after attacks are afforded it because of space and environment - and even then many are killed. It is assumed, if they are released, that they will not come into direct contact with human beings again. The same cannot be said for animals kept in cages or confined habitats. You know this.
You've still failed to provide examples of this animal-kill "rule" for zoos, and this handwaving is no substitute.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

You've still failed to provide examples of this animal-kill "rule" for zoos, and this handwaving is no substitute.
No, there is no "rule". In that sense, my statement was misleading. What I should have said was: "This is usually the case, and the result of animal attacks against humans is agreed to be breakdown of psychological barriers, the result of which is heightened danger for human beings." That doesn't vindicate your argument however. That tiger - especially because of the environment in which it now lives - had to be put down.
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

Axis Kast wrote:
A homeowner does not necessarily shoot anybody who comes toward his property. An animal is liable to do so regardless of the intent of the human being involved. Behavioral patterns differ severely. To compare the two is folly. But again, you know this.
Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.


Oh, I'll agree the tiger probably acted out of instinct. That doesn't mean its action won't have consequences however. The issue of desensitization remains. Even in open habitats, animals that attack humans who come too close - and all of the sources agree; it's virtually always the human's fault unless the animal is sick beforehand - are often put down. It's a matter of precluding a breakdown in psychological barriers.
An animal in a zoo lives within a controlled environment therefor the issue you have in a natural state hardly applys to that of a zoo.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

I'll deal with this in reverse order. You'll see why in a moment.
An animal in a zoo lives within a controlled environment therefor the issue you have in a natural state hardly applys to that of a zoo.
It's a genorosity to compare zoo animals - especially the Baghdad tiger - with those in a natural environment.

The articles all speak to the effects of stress upon aggressive behavior. Now, who among you is going to argue that the tiger in question was a typical example? That it wasn't under terrific stress, given what had to be substandard handling and constant noise? If stress is our qualifier for danger in the first place, this tiger registers at the high end of any chart.

Now that we've established similarities in animal behavior in zoos and natural habitats, let's look at difference in methodology of handling. In certain situations, a national park will "keep on" rather than "put down" an aggressive animal. This is largely accomplished via relocation, for the reasoning goes that most park animals never engage in direct contact with human begins. That's virtually impossible in a caged or artificial setting. Hence the stress - combined with the degredation of psychological barriers that lead animals to fear human begins - is much more a danger. The animal was a liability.
Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.
Irrelevant. In virtually all cases in which animals attack, the human being is at fault. That does not change the necessary consequences.
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6808
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Axis Kast wrote:
Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.
Irrelevant. In virtually all cases in which animals attack, the human being is at fault. That does not change the necessary consequences.
It is relevant. You don't act like a dumbass and stick something where it doesn't belong and it is very awkward to say that ones own fault is another's demise. It's his fault for putting his arm in there, and that what's he gets. What you're saying here smells like the "It's not my fault" bullshit.~Jason
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Stuart Mackey »

Axis Kast wrote:snip utter bullshit.
The animal was a liability.

Drunk soldier puts arm in tiger cage, tiger savages soldiers arm. Stress on Tiger is irrelivant because the soldier should never have put his arm in the cage. If as you say the tiger was under some kind of stress thats all the more reason not to go near the thing. In normall situations the tiger is probably controllably by properly trained staff, but the soldier is not properly trained to handle tigers.
Why do you not grasp this?
Right, which is why you dont put yout fucking arm in the cage of a tiger.
Irrelevant. In virtually all cases in which animals attack, the human being is at fault. That does not change the necessary consequences.
Ahh, nessary consequesnces. Given that it is safe to say that soldier is not trained to handle tigers in any circumstance, who the hell is he to judge what concequences are nessary, if any.
It is relivant because that soldier had food in his hand, was not trained to handle tigers and was drunk. A tiger when fed in an appropriate way would not attack as a trained zookeeper would know what to do.

Now kindly shut the fuck up, you patently dont know what you are talking about.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

It is relevant. You don't act like a dumbass and stick something where it doesn't belong and it is very awkward to say that ones own fault is another's demise. It's his fault for putting his arm in there, and that what's he gets. What you're saying here smells like the "It's not my fault" bullshit.~Jason
Are you some kind of moron? How many times does it have to be made clear to you that the consequences are still negative where the tiger is concerned? The animal’s fear of human beings decreases, to its handler’s detriment. It’s that simple. Fault doesn’t enter into this equation.
Drunk soldier puts arm in tiger cage, tiger savages soldiers arm. Stress on Tiger is irrelivant because the soldier should never have put his arm in the cage. If as you say the tiger was under some kind of stress thats all the more reason not to go near the thing. In normall situations the tiger is probably controllably by properly trained staff, but the soldier is not properly trained to handle tigers.
Why do you not grasp this?
Stress on the tiger is absolutely relevant, you blithering idiot. If the tiger is stressed, the effects of the attack are much, much worse because the psychological consequences – i.e. of fear of human beings – are more progressive.

Jesus H. Christ. For the one hundredth time: I am not defending the soldier’s choice.

In “normal conditions”? You mean when bombs hadn’t been falling ‘round the clock for about a month? This thing cannot but be half out of its mind already – and then you go and argue that a confidence boost in its own aggression is acceptable.
Ahh, nessary consequesnces. Given that it is safe to say that soldier is not trained to handle tigers in any circumstance, who the hell is he to judge what concequences are nessary, if any.
It is relivant because that soldier had food in his hand, was not trained to handle tigers and was drunk. A tiger when fed in an appropriate way would not attack as a trained zookeeper would know what to do.

Now kindly shut the fuck up, you patently dont know what you are talking about.
The consequences are clear to anybody with half a fucking brain.

A tiger when fed in an appropriate way can indeed attack a zoo keeper. Especially if it has a history of having encountered human beings in that kind of situation before. You’re making remarkably stupid hypothesis.
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6808
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Axis Kast wrote:Are you some kind of moron? How many times does it have to be made clear to you that the consequences are still negative where the tiger is concerned? The animal’s fear of human beings decreases, to its handler’s detriment. It’s that simple. Fault doesn’t enter into this equation.
The animal's fear in or out of the cage would be the same. It's called getting food. Besides how would you know if they fear us in the first place?~Jason
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Kast you fucking idiot, an animal in a cage that's mauled someone dumb enough to stick bits of themseleves into that cage and one that's mauled someone wandering the countryside are totally fucking different. You cannot even begin to compare them!

Jebus H. Frelling Crimbo, what in the fuck is wrong with that mess that passes for a brain for you?

A good friend of mine works as a keeper, and animals fear of humans does not enter into the equasion of how he works....even with the large cats he is perfectly comfortable working with them.
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6808
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Keevan_Colton wrote:Kast you fucking idiot, an animal in a cage that's mauled someone dumb enough to stick bits of themseleves into that cage and one that's mauled someone wandering the countryside are totally fucking different. You cannot even begin to compare them!
Yes you can, they want food. In order to survive you must eat.
A good friend of mine works as a keeper, and animals fear of humans does not enter into the equasion of how he works....even with the large cats he is perfectly comfortable working with them.
Or the cats are perfectly fine with him you mean.

I think Axis percieves it as If you're afraid of something all the more reason to attack it. If that's how he is basing it on then all the more fucking reason not to put your arm in there because the idiot would and did gave the tiger a big chance of doing so. PERIOD.

Cyaround,
Jason
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Soontir C'boath wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Kast you fucking idiot, an animal in a cage that's mauled someone dumb enough to stick bits of themseleves into that cage and one that's mauled someone wandering the countryside are totally fucking different. You cannot even begin to compare them!
Yes you can, they want food. In order to survive you must eat.
Nope....one is in a CAGE, where in order to be in any danger from its desire for food you have to be so fucking STUPID as to stick bits of yourself in the cage....the other is in an open area and then its fear of humans comes into play, in that it'd be best for everyone if it didnt wander up to people.......
You cannot use what should be done in one set of circumstances to show what should be done in the other....
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6808
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Keevan_Colton wrote:Nope....one is in a CAGE, where in order to be in any danger from its desire for food you have to be so fucking STUPID as to stick bits of yourself in the cage....the other is in an open area and then its fear of humans comes into play, in that it'd be best for everyone if it didnt wander up to people.......
You cannot use what should be done in one set of circumstances to show what should be done in the other....
May be best for everyone, but where did we get the conclusion that the one out in the open know well enough to know the consquences in the aftermath?
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Keevan_Colton
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10355
Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Contact:

Post by Keevan_Colton »

Soontir C'boath wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Nope....one is in a CAGE, where in order to be in any danger from its desire for food you have to be so fucking STUPID as to stick bits of yourself in the cage....the other is in an open area and then its fear of humans comes into play, in that it'd be best for everyone if it didnt wander up to people.......
You cannot use what should be done in one set of circumstances to show what should be done in the other....
May be best for everyone, but where did we get the conclusion that the one out in the open know well enough to know the consquences in the aftermath?
Please, see the last line...this is all about a caged animal....
"Prodesse Non Nocere."
"It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president."
"I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..."
"All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism.
BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Locked