Posted: 2003-10-02 03:36am
Perhaps Symmetry can join Axis in the tiger cage, where the tiger's natural inhibition against hurting humans will protect them unless there's been bombing or looting in the area in the last 3 months.
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Ah, but of course, it might consider thier behaviour obnoxious and eat them for being rude ala Hanibal. After all, it would never ever happen because tigers are large carnivores.....Darth Wong wrote:Perhaps Symmetry can join Axis in the tiger cage, where the tiger's natural inhibition against hurting humans will protect them unless there's been bombing or looting in the area in the last 3 months.
Not exactly. Tigers will still attack qualified people (chances are it won't ask for their diploma). Qualified people know they must not enter the cage in the first place while the tiger is in it.evilcat4000 wrote:Axis Kast please stop repeating yourself and accept that Tigers are dangerous animals that will certainly attack anyone who enters their cage (unless of course that person is qualified to handle Tigers). It is natural for zoo Tigers to attack humans. Wild Tigers may not attack though. Only when a Tiger is very old or has been injured will it resort to maneating.
You're forgetting such factors as the stress caused by precision bombing months ago and ficticious roving bands of looters (what the FUCK would you loot from a zoo?) shooting into the air.Slartibartfast wrote:Not exactly. Tigers will still attack qualified people (chances are it won't ask for their diploma). Qualified people know they must not enter the cage in the first place while the tiger is in it.evilcat4000 wrote:Axis Kast please stop repeating yourself and accept that Tigers are dangerous animals that will certainly attack anyone who enters their cage (unless of course that person is qualified to handle Tigers). It is natural for zoo Tigers to attack humans. Wild Tigers may not attack though. Only when a Tiger is very old or has been injured will it resort to maneating.
The only case where a tiger won't attack a human when both are confined in some sort of small room, is because the tiger is somehow attached to the human (human raised it as a cub, plays regularly, etc) and even then the chance of an attack is quite high... it's more likely that it'll just scratch you or bite you once (instinct takes over), just not maul you completely to death.
It was sufficiently continuous in scope that we can expect that the tiger would have been under significant stress. Bombing may have been selective, but it’s hardly as if it was lacking.And during that time, it sounded like a constant sound rather than sporadic popping? I can't believe the way you tenaciously fight for every scrap of your bullshit.
An animal in the wild controls its own fortunes; this caged tiger was completely reliant on human beings for food, water, and any other necessities it might have required. We can safely say that the quality of care declined during the invasion.Nice strawman, idiot. I'm comparing the animal's natural state (constant fear of death and starvation) to your idiotic notions.
Look at the Yellowstone sources. They all confirm: animal aggression is tied to stress.Prove it.
Around people he doesn’t know, exhibiting frightening behaviors, your dog would experience significant stress.
Of course he'll notice. That doesn't mean he will become permanently more dangerous than he was before, idiot.
This is just it, you moron. The human being is now directly associated with food. Before, it wasn’t necessarily the choice target.Oh my god. Once again I ask you. Do you seriously believe that there is a zoo in the world that you can stick your hand in the cage of any wild predator, while holding food, and not get attacked.
The likelyhood hasn't been decreased or increased it was always the same because a tiger is a wild animal.....a predator that eats meat, and kills live prey.
IIRC the tiger in question was bred in captivity, so it never knew anything but being in a cage.Chardok wrote:I seriously, honestly cannot believe this thread is still open...I'm all for debating but GOD DAMN!
Can we reach a comprimise?
Axis: Tigers are inherently dangerous. They are naturally equipped with sharp, pointy things to injure other things and climb trees. Tigers bad.
As an aside, who says the tiger thought :Ooh, human, must bite hand? He could have been "Playing" in his own, tigger-y fashion.
Mr. Wong: The tiger was stressed. We all are. All animals are. everything is (In a deeply philisohical sense) not that that was the sole cause of the attck, but could it have been a factor? how long was the tiger without food when the soldier came in to feed it? Did it have multiple tiger personalities? Perhaps it was still pissed about being ripped from it's natural habitat and when it saw the soldier's hand it thought "REVENGE! YES! Look at this fucking imbecile sticking his pathetic, juicy, hand inside the cell! I must have it for my own!!!" *CHOMP* "Mmmmh tastes like wilde-" *Dead*
Okay, this was a small attempt at humor, but this is going nowhere, guys!
(as another aside, I do check this thread regularly to see if any new arguments have bubbled up...)
I just had a thought...Perhaps you are both approaching this from different levels, is all? Like, axis seems to want to refer to that one particular tiger (exceptions granted for the yellowstone examples et al.) and Mike, you refer to predators, and, more specifically, tigers in general. Could this be an issue? Just a few random thoughts. Enjoy, all!
Oh, I agree with the fact that they were morons and should be punished. You wouldn't catch ME anywhere NEAR a tiger bred in captivity or not.The soldiers were in an area where they were not meant to be.
They behaved in a stupid manner and should be thrown out the military and face charges for shooting the tiger.
Were they during the war, though? I would have thought during the bombing and shit, the keepers would have ducked for cover. I seem to recall hearing an interview with a conservationalist on NPS (Fresh Air, It was) just back from baghdad who said that the keepers stopped working because they weren't being paid and the zoo was in a bad way, until some program brought in foreigners who taught the keepers modern handling techniques and even brought cash to pay the zookeepers see this:The animals were being fed and watered regularly and properly by the keepers in the zoo.
See more hereinterview from NPR wrote:Fresh Air, June 9, 2003
Stephan Bognar is a field agent for the San Francisco-based international non-profit wildlife conservation group, WildAid. Bognar just returned from two months in Baghdad, where he helped with the effort to rescue and rehabilitate the animals at the Baghdad Zoo. When he arrived, only 32 of the 600 animals remained, the rest were stolen or roaming the streets. The ones left at the zoo were suffering from neglect, malnutrition and dehydration. Bognar helped in the efforts to care for the animals, and to find the lost ones. He also was part of several black market sting operations to recover animals. Bognar also took care of Uday Hussein's private collection of animals which had been abandoned and which included cheetahs, lions and baby lion cubs.
IIRC the tiger in question was bred in captivity, so it never knew anything but being in a cage
The tiger had 3 months to relax after the bombings. Concession accepted.Axis Kast wrote:It was sufficiently continuous in scope that we can expect that the tiger would have been under significant stress. Bombing may have been selective, but it’s hardly as if it was lacking.And during that time, it sounded like a constant sound rather than sporadic popping? I can't believe the way you tenaciously fight for every scrap of your bullshit.
GOLDEN MEAN! GOLDEN MEAN! AXIS AND CHARDOK, SITTING ON A TREE!Chardok wrote:I seriously, honestly cannot believe this thread is still open...I'm all for debating but GOD DAMN!
Can we reach a comprimise?
The really really stupid idea that the truth must exist between two opposing points of view, rather than one or other.Chardok wrote:EEK!
BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!!!
*cowers in the glow of Slartibartfasts greatness* Please NO!!!
What is Golden Mean?
If side A says the answer is 50, and side B says the answer is 100, the Golden Mean Fallacy concludes that the answer must be 75.Chardok wrote:What is Golden Mean?