StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject:

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.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 07:44am 

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.....

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 08:45am 

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.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 10:51am 

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.

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.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 11:00am 

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.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 04:08pm 

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.



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.



Look at the Yellowstone sources. They all confirm: animal aggression is tied to stress.



Around people he doesn’t know, exhibiting frightening behaviors, your dog would experience significant stress.

This all boils down to the impact of the tiger’s aggression being worse because of its psychological condition at the time.

The tiger is not necessarily some stoic creature made more hearty by its large teeth and great strength. It is an animal that, like any other, can be made fearful.



This is just it, you moron. The human being is now directly associated with food. Before, it wasn’t necessarily the choice target.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 05:38pm 

Kast, you blithering idiot, I see you will attempt to nitpick bullshit until the end of time.

However, the fact that a tiger can become even more dangerous under duress does not mean it is not already capable of biting a man's hand!

Christ, what a fucking moron.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:09pm 

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!

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:27pm 

IIRC the tiger in question was bred in captivity, so it never knew anything but being in a cage.
The animals were being fed and watered regularly and properly by the keepers in the zoo.
There are no reports of the tiger ever having been more agressive than an average tiger with regards to the keepers.
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.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:35pm 

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.




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:



See more here

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:36pm 

What is IIRC, by the way? No one has ever told me...

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:43pm 

Lets look at dates again...that articale is from the begining of June, not long after the "end" of the war...the more recent articles from various sources mention more aid and experts going out and helping. So, we've got something there saying things were better a few months ago and other things saying there's been more improvement....and so, the tiger was under stress how exactly?

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:46pm 

Also, the keepers remained with the animals up until just before the taking of baghdad itself, when they were kicked out by the iraqi army who used it as a staging point. It was only without care for a period of around a week, though looting of the less dangerous animals, for profit or for food occured and a number of lions were let loose on the streets and shot by american forces. A single week of poor conditions is hardly justification for killing an animal over three months later. Lets not even get started on the fact the zoo had underwent a $27 million refit that was scheduled to end just at the time of the war.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 06:48pm 

Oh, okay, I guess i'll play devil's advocate here. What about this: (Keeping in mind I know NOTHING of animal psyche....)
Okay, so you're a tiger, right? Raised from birth in captivity to be completely dependent on humans. One day, things go to shit. Looters, no food, no washing, no care. period. How long does this last? I don't know..but perhaps the tiger began distrusting humans after that?

Tiger: "Good. Food. Alright! Some extra bits! might as well bulk up while it's here!" *CHOMP*

Oh, and thanks for the acronym Def.!

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 07:02pm 

The tiger had 3 months to relax after the bombings. Concession accepted.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 07:03pm 

GOLDEN MEAN! GOLDEN MEAN! AXIS AND CHARDOK, SITTING ON A TREE!

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 07:13pm 

EEK!
BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!!!
*cowers in the glow of Slartibartfasts greatness* Please NO!!!


What is Golden Mean?

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 08:59pm 

The really really stupid idea that the truth must exist between two opposing points of view, rather than one or other.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 09:39pm 

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that was the truth, only that the endless loops of "STRESS"
"No it isn't, here's why:"
"STRESS"
"No it isn't here's another reason why"
"STRESS"
"No it isn't here's why in Spanish"
"STRESS"
"No it isn't, here's why illustrated by this powerpoint presentation."
"STRESS"
"No it isn't, here's why in pantomime."
"STRESS"
"No it isn't here's why as presented by Sean Austin, Independent film producer/actor"

Should be stopped.

 Post subject:

Posted: 2003-10-02 09:41pm 

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.

Of course, people who use the Golden Mean fallacy are generally not so forthright, so it's dressed up a bit and you have to learn to recognize it. For example:

• "There are radicals on both the creation and evolution camp. The hardcore evolutionists are really just as bad as the fundies. The truth is probably somewhere between those extremist viewpoints."
• "Some of the moon-landing hoax theories are pretty far-fetched, but they make some pretty good points. The people who angrily deny all of these theories are being very close-minded, and I can see merits to both sides' arguments."

Of course, there are times when a moderate viewpoint happens to be correct, but at no time must its moderate nature make it correct.