StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-09-02 05:08am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics » Famous Threads


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

US soldier kills Baghdad tiger

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 10 of 10
 [ 245 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Darth Wong
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 03:36am 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
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.
   Profile |  

Keevan_Colton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 07:44am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-12-30 09:57pm
Posts: 10355
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
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.


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.....
   Profile |  

Sarevok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 08:45am 

The Fearless One


Joined: 2002-12-24 08:29am
Posts: 10681
Location: The Covenants last and final line of defense
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.
   Profile |  

Slartibartfast
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 10:51am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
Posts: 6730
Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
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.


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.
   Profile |  

Stravo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 11:00am 

Official SD.Net Teller of Tales


Joined: 2002-07-08 12:06pm
Posts: 12806
Location: NYC
Slartibartfast wrote:
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.


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.


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. :roll:
   Profile |  

Axis Kast
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 04:08pm 

Vympel's Bitch


Joined: 2003-03-02 11:45am
Posts: 3893
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
Nice strawman, idiot. I'm comparing the animal's natural state (constant fear of death and starvation) to your idiotic notions.


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.

Quote:
Prove it.


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

Quote:

Of course he'll notice. That doesn't mean he will become permanently more dangerous than he was before, idiot.


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.

Quote:
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.


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

Darth Wong
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 05:38pm 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
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.
   Profile |  

Chardok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:09pm 

GET THE FUCK OFF MY OBSTACLE!


Joined: 2003-08-12 09:49am
Posts: 8439
Location: San Antonio
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! :lol:

(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! :)
   Profile |  

Keevan_Colton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:27pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-12-30 09:57pm
Posts: 10355
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
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! :lol:

(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! :)


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.
   Profile |  

Chardok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:35pm 

GET THE FUCK OFF MY OBSTACLE!


Joined: 2003-08-12 09:49am
Posts: 8439
Location: San Antonio
Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
The animals were being fed and watered regularly and properly by the keepers in the zoo.


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:

interview 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.


See more here
   Profile |  

Chardok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:36pm 

GET THE FUCK OFF MY OBSTACLE!


Joined: 2003-08-12 09:49am
Posts: 8439
Location: San Antonio
Quote:
IIRC the tiger in question was bred in captivity, so it never knew anything but being in a cage



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

Keevan_Colton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:43pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-12-30 09:57pm
Posts: 10355
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
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.
   Profile |  

Keevan_Colton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:46pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-12-30 09:57pm
Posts: 10355
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
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.
   Profile |  

Chardok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 06:48pm 

GET THE FUCK OFF MY OBSTACLE!


Joined: 2003-08-12 09:49am
Posts: 8439
Location: San Antonio
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.! :wink:
   Profile |  

Slartibartfast
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 07:02pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
Posts: 6730
Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
Axis Kast wrote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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

Slartibartfast
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 07:03pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
Posts: 6730
Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
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?


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

Chardok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 07:13pm 

GET THE FUCK OFF MY OBSTACLE!


Joined: 2003-08-12 09:49am
Posts: 8439
Location: San Antonio
EEK!
BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!!!
*cowers in the glow of Slartibartfasts greatness* Please NO!!!


What is Golden Mean? :)
   Profile |  

Keevan_Colton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 08:59pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-12-30 09:57pm
Posts: 10355
Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
Chardok wrote:
EEK!
BACKPEDAL BACKPEDAL!!!
*cowers in the glow of Slartibartfasts greatness* Please NO!!!


What is Golden Mean? :)


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

Chardok
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 09:39pm 

GET THE FUCK OFF MY OBSTACLE!


Joined: 2003-08-12 09:49am
Posts: 8439
Location: San Antonio
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.
   Profile |  

Darth Wong
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 2003-10-02 09:41pm 

Sith Lord


Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Posts: 70016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Chardok wrote:
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.

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.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 10 of 10
 [ 245 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

It is currently 2014-09-02 05:08am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics » Famous Threads

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group