StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

To tell the truth, I don't have any problems with killing animals on the precautionary principle unless thye're primates or dolphins, but I would hesitate to kill a human just because I thought it was likely he'd commit violence a second time.

If a man is likely to commit violence, you would PUT HIM IN A CAGE, where he can't hurt anybody (hint: look up the word "prison" in a dictionary).

Thats exactly right. I would put the human in a cage where he almost certainly won't be violent again, but I'll kill the animal so that its impossible for it to be violent again. I treat them differently because I value the man's life more.

Your own value system does not correspond to everyone's.~Jason

Symmetry wrote:Thats exactly right. I would put the human in a cage where he almost certainly won't be violent again, but I'll kill the animal so that its impossible for it to be violent again. I treat them differently because I value the man's life more.

Well, then we obviously disagree. I value a murderer's life less than I do an animal which only did what came naturally to it (due to a human's stupidity) and is safely behind bars again.

In fact, my preference would be to put them in the same cage

Darth Wong wrote:Kast is definitely being an idiot, and he's aggressively defending a ridiculous point (the whole notion that the tiger bit the man because of stress rather than its natural meat-eater tendencies is almost hilariously funny, yet he takes it seriously because he's afraid to lose face by conceding).

However, don't you think you're on thin ice when you poke at him for being eager with the insults when your very first post in this thread was your accusation that I'm being "dense"?

Not really, I asked if you were "playing dense," that you were giving Kast a hard time as part of a debating strategy. I was sincere about it and I'm sorry if I was wrong, but that did seem the most likely explanation, since I don't believe anybody here is really an idiot.

What really interested me about this thread, is that most participents in this thread have been insulting Kast aggresivly, while he doesn't reply in kind until now (except for something on page one which doesn't really cross the line, and that was before the debate got serious anyways).

Kast is definitely being an idiot, and he's aggressively defending a ridiculous point (the whole notion that the tiger bit the man because of stress rather than its natural meat-eater tendencies is almost hilariously funny, yet he takes it seriously because he's afraid to lose face by conceding).

No, Wong. I'm not defending that point. You created that point.

My point is that no matter why the animal bit the guy, the stress it must have been under would only have reinforced the negative reinforcement gained. But then, if you'd read rather than jumped in because it was me, you might have noticed that.

As to stress from bombs, air strikes are extended affairs that create a great deal of variable-strength noise. On a sustained level, the tiger would probably be somewhat stressed out. Even moreso if looting and gunfire marked activity at the zoo only a short time before.

I used to have my Briggs-Mayer personality type, but I forgot it, Sym.

Darth Wong wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Thats exactly right. I would put the human in a cage where he almost certainly won't be violent again, but I'll kill the animal so that its impossible for it to be violent again. I treat them differently because I value the man's life more.

Well, then we obviously disagree. I value a murderer's life less than I do an animal which only did what came naturally to it (due to a human's stupidity) and is safely behind bars again.

In fact, my preference would be to put them in the same cage

And I wouldn't have expected you to feel that way, and thus I assumed you were being fascitious earlier.

Axis Kast wrote:

Kast is definitely being an idiot, and he's aggressively defending a ridiculous point (the whole notion that the tiger bit the man because of stress rather than its natural meat-eater tendencies is almost hilariously funny, yet he takes it seriously because he's afraid to lose face by conceding).

No, Wong. I'm not defending that point. You created that point.

My point is that no matter why the animal bit the guy, the stress it must have been under would only have reinforced the negative reinforcement gained. But then, if you'd read rather than jumped in because it was me, you might have noticed that.

As to stress from bombs, air strikes are extended affairs that create a great deal of variable-strength noise. On a sustained level, the tiger would probably be somewhat stressed out. Even moreso if looting and gunfire marked activity at the zoo only a short time before.

But doesn't inconstancy only apply in when you're talking about conditioning? I mean, you'd probably have a lot of sensitization at this point, so if three was gunfire nearby they might be agitated...but I really don't know that much about the psychology of largeish mammals.

I used to have my Briggs-Mayer personality type, but I forgot it, Sym.

Damn, well I'm betting you're a INTJ like I am.

Axis Kast wrote:My point is that no matter why the animal bit the guy, the stress it must have been under would only have reinforced the negative reinforcement gained. But then, if you'd read rather than jumped in because it was me, you might have noticed that.
As to stress from bombs, air strikes are extended affairs that create a great deal of variable-strength noise. On a sustained level, the tiger would probably be somewhat stressed out. Even moreso if looting and gunfire marked activity at the zoo only a short time before.
I used to have my Briggs-Mayer personality type, but I forgot it, Sym.

Just a few questions.
1.How did you question the tiger how stress it was while it was alive?
2.Why would it still be stressful in the aftermath of the bombings, shootings etc?
3.Do you have any concrete proof that it was stress or even if the tiger had any at all besides explain away of the events that have occurred to make it take the course of action?

What really interested me about this thread, is that most participents in this thread have been insulting Kast aggresivly, while he doesn't reply in kind until now (except for something on page one which doesn't really cross the line, and that was before the debate got serious anyways).

Go join a debate team if you want things nice.

~Jason

Soontir C'boath wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

What really interested me about this thread, is that most participents in this thread have been insulting Kast aggresivly, while he doesn't reply in kind until now (except for something on page one which doesn't really cross the line, and that was before the debate got serious anyways).

Go join a debate team if you want things nice.

Don't worry, I have pretty thick skin I was just interested in the dynamics of the discussion, thats all.

Go join a debate team if you want things nice.

Insulting other people detracts from your own argument. It brings into question why you feel the need to denegrate people rather than simply trying to argue the point itself. SD.net is notorious for having a very, very unfriendly atmosphere.

Just a few questions.
1.How did you question the tiger how stress it was while it was alive?
2.Why would it still be stressful in the aftermath of the bombings, shootings etc?
3.Do you have any concrete proof that it was stress or even if the tiger had any at all besides explain away of the events that have occurred to make it take the course of action?

No rainstorm in Africa or India is as long and furious as the kind of pounding the Coalition gave Baghdad. The tiger was also very restricted in terms of its capability to seek shelter or flee the storm range.

You also have no idea what kind of impact looting and gunfire in the immediate vicinity left on the tiger, but the safest bet is to at least assume it was negative to some extent.

Stress wouldn't necessarily have provoked the attack, but they would almost certainly mean psychological barriers had suffered degredation already. And that's the issue. The animal would have been more prone to "storing" bad lessons.

You also have no idea what kind of impact looting and gunfire in the immediate vicinity left on the tiger, but the safest bet is to at least assume it was negative to some extent.

You're telling me I have no idea yet you give a safe bet. That's reassuring of what you know too. Not to mention how far is that extent? You are just giving me vague answers buddy. Why would it harm to some extent?

Stress wouldn't necessarily have provoked the attack, but they would almost certainly mean psychological barriers had suffered degredation already. And that's the issue. The animal would have been more prone to "storing" bad lessons.

1. How does the tiger know it was humans dropping ordinance? For all it knows an asteroid fell.
2. Humans with machine guns and looting has in no way harmed the tiger whilst in its cage. If it somehow projected in its mind that one day one of those motherfuckers will kill him then I would love you to make animal talk with one just for me one day.

Cyaround,
Jason

Many animals become visibly agitated just prior to large storms. The attack on Baghdad would have qualified in terms of sound and fury as something larger in scope and longer in duration than anything seen before - especially for an animal confined much of its life to the relatively placid city of Baghdad.

Looters firing guns in the central zoo and potentially creating havoc, noise, and random, temporay fires wouldn't prompt fear? I have a hard time swallowing that opinion.

Axis Kast wrote:Many animals become visibly agitated just prior to large storms. The attack on Baghdad would have qualified in terms of sound and fury as something larger in scope and longer in duration than anything seen before - especially for an animal confined much of its life to the relatively placid city of Baghdad.

And apparently, this still terrifies the animal 3 months later

Looters firing guns in the central zoo and potentially creating havoc, noise, and random, temporay fires wouldn't prompt fear?

If you have a source for your claim that looters were firing guns in the zoo right before the tiger attacked the soldier, then please provide it. Otherwise, stop wasting time with your pathetic attempts to save face with baseless speculation and bullshit.

PS. You still can't prove that this tiger is more dangerous than any other tiger, so all of your voluminous bullshit is still nothing more than a joke.

What utterly floors me about this thread is that it has gone on for 7 pages DEFENDING the idiot soldiers that stuck their arms into a Tiger cage. Seriously what is the point of defending the soldiers, I think it is obvious that they were in the wrong, drinking, dressed in civilian clothes, sticking their hands in a Tiger cage, NOT while the Tiger is far away but close enough for it maul them. Case fucking closed.

Then I saw who was defending the action and I knew why. I see the nickname has been aptly earned.

Symmetry wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Axis Kast wrote: Nice way to evade the analogy; just point out that it's an analogy instead of a precise description. Did you learn this debate technique from Sesame Street?
.

I think it was obvious to most poeple that the relevant differnece between humans and animals that Kast was pointing out was that there are situations in which we'd kill animals in which we wouldn't kill people. To tell the truth, I don't have any problems with killing animals on the precautionary principle unless thye're primates or dolphins, but I would hesitate to kill a human just because I thought it was likely he'd commit violence a second time. Do you think you might be being deliberatly dense, Darth Wong?

What's so special about Primates and Dolphins? What is it about those two animals that would stop you from hunting a rogue(meaning it attacks people) one down and killing it?

Symmetry wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Symmetry wrote: If a man is likely to commit violence, you would PUT HIM IN A CAGE, where he can't hurt anybody (hint: look up the word "prison" in a dictionary).

Thats exactly right. I would put the human in a cage where he almost certainly won't be violent again, but I'll kill the animal so that its impossible for it to be violent again. I treat them differently because I value the man's life more.

I personally despise a human more. Fuck them all....I don't see how you can value someone that understands what he/she is doing vs. an animal which is only acting out it's nature.

Darth Wong wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Thats exactly right. I would put the human in a cage where he almost certainly won't be violent again, but I'll kill the animal so that its impossible for it to be violent again. I treat them differently because I value the man's life more.

Well, then we obviously disagree. I value a murderer's life less than I do an animal which only did what came naturally to it (due to a human's stupidity) and is safely behind bars again.

In fact, my preference would be to put them in the same cage

Indeed. Lets feed all murders, rapists, ect to Tigers!

Let's re open the Colleseium!!!

Ok, what was the point again?

Let's see... any tiger, anywhere in the world, will at most maul you to death if you get too close (unless it's one of those "domesticated" tigers, in which case they will only maul you to death if they had a not-so-perfect day).

But this tiger is so unusually stressed and savage, brutal and cruel, more aggresive than normal tigers. Which means he will do something even more cruel to you than just kill you (like the other tigers, who have hardwired in their brain that you're food and ok to eat, unless you have weapons or something).

It means that he will not only kill you and mutilate you, he'll also take bits and pieces, put them in envelopes and send it to your closest relatives. Or something worse. It is, after all, an unusually negativelly-reinforced tiger.

Axis Kast wrote:Many animals become visibly agitated just prior to large storms. The attack on Baghdad would have qualified in terms of sound and fury as something larger in scope and longer in duration than anything seen before - especially for an animal confined much of its life to the relatively placid city of Baghdad.

Well why didn't you just say so before? Tigers can get agitated prior to a storm, so this tiger must have gotten agitated because he knew about the impending gunshot that would scatter his fucking brains on the floor.

Looters firing guns in the central zoo and potentially creating havoc, noise, and random, temporay fires wouldn't prompt fear? I have a hard time swallowing that opinion.

So the two drunken soldiers went to the zoo in the middle of gunfire, havoc, noise, looting and random fires? I must've missed that part of the article.

Kamakazie Sith wrote: What's so special about Primates and Dolphins? What is it about those two animals that would stop you from hunting a rogue(meaning it attacks people) one down and killing it?

Its not that they're so special as all that, just that they're closer to sentience than any other animal, and so are best dealt with in a less arbitrary manner. I certainly woulnd't hesitate to kill a rogue human by that definition, and a dolphin even less; but I'd rather do something else if its practical.

Symmetry wrote:

Kamakazie Sith wrote: What's so special about Primates and Dolphins? What is it about those two animals that would stop you from hunting a rogue(meaning it attacks people) one down and killing it?

Its not that they're so special as all that, just that they're closer to sentience than any other animal, and so are best dealt with in a less arbitrary manner. I certainly woulnd't hesitate to kill a rogue human by that definition, and a dolphin even less; but I'd rather do something else if its practical.

But given the chance whether to shoot another animal, and not shooting it an do something else if its practical, you would choose to shoot it... well, a bit trigger-happy aren't we?

The tiger was living under significant levels of stress, one result of which was to make the negative impacts of the attack even more relevant.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Let's re open the Colleseium!!!

I'm just suprised this thread didn't die about 4 pages ago.

We like crucified threads and trolls.