I agree.....
The Tiger was clearly having anger problems due to its past relationship with its father.
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Axis, your mouth has the same use as your mothers cunt.Axis Kast wrote:
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.
A tiger when hadled by a trained keeper who knows the animal, is a safe, albeit potenially dangerous, thing..those soldiers were drunk twits who tawt dey saw a puddy tat. It is for these reasons that stress on the tiger is irrelivant..the soldiers were morons of the highest calibre.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.
I believe he is correct. There was an incident at Lagoon (an amusement park in Utah) where one the animal tenders was feeding or petting a Leopard and was attacked. They put the leopard down because it attacked a human.Slartibartfast wrote:Please post proof of this worldwide policy.The Yosemite Bear wrote:The animal attacked a human thus it had to be killed. That is the policy the world over.
That's because it's utterly irrelevant, unless you expect me to believe that those soldiers were zoo staff. We're talking about the animal's ability to harm visitors, which is basically nonexistent when visitors obey the safety margins.Axis Kast wrote:Not a single one of you has footed proof to the effect that the so-called “most wild” animals are never in a position to harm zoo staff.
Ah yes, and this animal had a history such aggressive tendencies that the soldier who killed it took into account before he plugged it?Why does psychology matter? Edi made the argument for me. An assault on humans destroys the, “If it’s not prey, don’t touch” outlook. An animal that kills or attacks a human becomes much more likely to do so again if it gets the chance. If you want proof that certain animals can display different kinds of behavior on an individual basis, look no further than elephants; many have been “put down” as a result of aggressive tendencies.
So if some jack-ass runs around sticking his hands into every zoo cage he finds, every animal that attacks him should be shot dead? That's patently absurd, yet somehow unexpected.Nobody’s arguing that animals at zoos are “made docile.” We know that’s not the case. Nobody is arguing, Edi, that the tiger wouldn’t respond the same way to a similar incident – merely that it can’t be allowed to even once.
No Kast, you're arguing that human stupidity when dealing with large, ferocious predators is irrelevant when said predators attack people due to their own idiocy. Well it's not. I don't know what premise you base this on, but it isn't a premise involving anything even remotely resembling conventional crime-and-punishment practices.Get it through your heads: nobody is arguing that the soldier didn’t make a mistake. It must be recognized that the animal had to be put down however. If the soldier didn’t do it, somebody else should have.
That's because they're not caged up, dumb-ass. An animal attacking a human and doing damage from behind iron bars requires human stupidity. An animal attacking a human in the wild does not. In the former case, the human has only himself to blame for being such a fucking idiot. In the latter, the animal is culpable. Get it yet?The comparison to national parks displays clearly that animals that attack humans are put down on a regular basis – even in a location where they can be set free in areas where it is unlikely they will encounter humans a second time.
And you casually wave your hand and dismiss the soldier's responsibility as a fundamental assumption of your argument, an assumption which you have failed to justify, even after repeated challenges. So go ahead and keep telling yourself that we're just knee-jerking, if it makes you feel any better. We'll just stand back and watch you make a complete fool of yourself.Put simply, a vast majority of these arguments are knee-jerk bullshit that still haven't backed off from trying to argue the soldier's responsibility.
Last time I checked a cage also seperates zoo staff from the animal. When zoo staff need to clean the cage, they move the animal to a different holding area....this was already covered above...I see you choose to ignore it.Axis Kast wrote:Not a single one of you has footed proof to the effect that the so-called “most wild” animals are never in a position to harm zoo staff.
Are you serious? A wild predators psychology goes something like "if it moves it may taste good"Why does psychology matter? Edi made the argument for me. An assault on humans destroys the, “If it’s not prey, don’t touch” outlook. An animal that kills or attacks a human becomes much more likely to do so again if it gets the chance. If you want proof that certain animals can display different kinds of behavior on an individual basis, look no further than elephants; many have been “put down” as a result of aggressive tendencies.
It wasn't allowed to!!! Christ man that is the purpose of a cage.Nobody’s arguing that animals at zoos are “made docile.” We know that’s not the case. Nobody is arguing, Edi, that the tiger wouldn’t respond the same way to a similar incident – merely that it can’t be allowed to even once.
We aren't arguing the somebody made a mistake....that is fucking obvious. What we are arguing is the stupidity of putting an animal down, by someone who was not AUTHORIZED to do so, because it attacked someone who broke a rule that is apart of any zoo in the world.Get it through your heads: nobody is arguing that the soldier didn’t make a mistake. It must be recognized that the animal had to be put down however. If the soldier didn’t do it, somebody else should have.
How come you can't see the difference between an animal that in contained within a cage and one which is not?The comparison to national parks displays clearly that animals that attack humans are put down on a regular basis – even in a location where they can be set free in areas where it is unlikely they will encounter humans a second time.
The ONLY situation which I can agree with the soldier shooting the Tiger is IF the Tiger still had a hold of the other soldier. If that is the case then that soldier should not be punished (unless he was drunk and in possession of a firearm) However, the soldier that violated the rules of the zoo should be stripped of rank, and have his pay docked. Maybe he'll wake the fuck up!Put simply, a vast majority of these arguments are knee-jerk bullshit that still haven't backed off from trying to argue the soldier's responsibility.
You're wrong. The cage is just a psychological deterrent, to make the tiger afraid and obedient to his human masters. The animal knows that if he steps out of line, he's going to get a head full of lead, but the cage is there to reinforce the feeling of impotence and inferiority.Kamakazie Sith wrote:It wasn't allowed to!!! Christ man that is the purpose of a cage.
And yet people disobey those rules. Animals are occasionally placed in a position from which they do harm. Practicality dictates: precautions must be taken. This is, of course, aside from the zoo staff itself – which you must still prove is somehow immune to animal aggression.That's because it's utterly irrelevant, unless you expect me to believe that those soldiers were zoo staff. We're talking about the animal's ability to harm visitors , which is basically nonexistent when visitors obey the safety margins.
I’m arguing validity of theory, not validity of circumstance. In this case, one attack would be more than sufficient evidence. That tiger could not but be near the breaking point.
Ah yes, and this animal had a history such aggressive tendencies that the soldier who killed it took into account before he plugged it?
False dilemma. Aggressive animals are shot even by institutions whose purpose it is to preserve them: witness policy at National Parks. You also dismiss rather important factors related to analysis of animal psychology – particularly environmental stress.So if some jack-ass runs around sticking his hands into every zoo cage he finds, every animal that attacks him should be shot dead? That's patently absurd, yet somehow unexpected.
Yes, it is. “Conventional crime-and-punishment practices” are not applicable to what cannot reason. It isn’t my fault you can’t understand that an animal does not know whether human actions are intended or unintended, but gains the same reinforcement as a result of the attack in either case.No Kast, you're arguing that human stupidity when dealing with large, ferocious predators is irrelevant when said predators attack people due to their own idiocy. Well it's not. I don't know what premise you base this on, but it isn't a premise involving anything even remotely resembling conventional crime-and-punishment practices.
Culpability of human or animal is irrelevant. The same problems result no matter what the situation.
That's because they're not caged up, dumb-ass. An animal attacking a human and doing damage from behind iron bars requires human stupidity. An animal attacking a human in the wild does not. In the former case, the human has only himself to blame for being such a fucking idiot. In the latter, the animal is culpable. Get it yet?
What the soldier “deserved” is not a fundamental part of this argument. It is now up to you to substantiate how aggression differs in psychological impact on the animal whether it is the human’s fault or not.
And you casually wave your hand and dismiss the soldier's responsibility as a fundamental assumption of your argument, an assumption which you have failed to justify, even after repeated challenges . So go ahead and keep telling yourself that we're just knee-jerking, if it makes you feel any better. We'll just stand back and watch you make a complete fool of yourself.
You have offered no proof that zoo staff never deal with active wild animals at one point or another.Last time I checked a cage also seperates zoo staff from the animal. When zoo staff need to clean the cage, they move the animal to a different holding area....this was already covered above...I see you choose to ignore it.
Your assessment of a predator’s psychology is so simplistic it’s laughable.Are you serious? A wild predators psychology goes something like "if it moves it may taste good"
I want some sources of elephants being put down due to aggressive tendancies. (which doesn't include Dumbo going on a rampage through downtown)
That kind of behavior cannot be tolerated at any juncture. Period.
It wasn't allowed to!!! Christ man that is the purpose of a cage.
This is about principle, not whether it was right or wrong for the individual solider to make that decision.We aren't arguing the somebody made a mistake....that is fucking obvious. What we are arguing is the stupidity of putting an animal down, by someone who was not AUTHORIZED to do so, because it attacked someone who broke a rule that is apart of any zoo in the world.
Because even in National Parks, where animals are unlikely to be able to attack humans a second time in most circumstances, they are still shot for aggression.
How come you can't see the difference between an animal that in contained within a cage and one which is not?
Tell that to the people at National Parks who kill animals for that reason.Why should a predator be put down again? Because it becomes "desensitized" to killing humans? As if they didnt have a problem with it before...
Certain behaviors by wild animals in enclosed settings cannot be tolerated. Hell, according to Yellowstone National Park, certain behaviors by wild animals in open settings cannot be tolerated, either.THe point is Kast, an animal that does what is natural to it should not be put down. You ust understand that, even though we are the dominant animals on the food chain, we are not outside it, and are still easy prey for any animal that atches us without our technologicl shield against them.
A DOMESTIC animal that attacks a human becomes a danger, a wild animal that attacks a human was a danger in the first place, does this mean we should kill all non-domesticated animals????
That is because those animals are supposed to come into direct contact with humans on a regular basis. And even then, they do not put animals down often. They relocate them.Certain behaviors by wild animals in enclosed settings cannot be tolerated. Hell, according to Yellowstone National Park, certain behaviors by wild animals in open settings cannot be tolerated, either.
Go back and read the actual source posts. The animals at the zoo were never specified to have escaped at any time.Yeah, the cases such as that involved an elephant running about in the open trampling on people....not caged animals....
Why was the soldier's hand in the cage in the first place? It couldn't have been to give him food, could it have? No. I don't remember reading that.Such animals are a danger to people in the first place, and in the case of wild animals, only tolerate human presence in their territory, and are only made all the more dangerous, by human feeding(they associate humans with food directly.... now instead of viewing them as a possible food source, they view them as a primary food source, and dont distinguish between a sandwitch and your hand)
This behavior is expected and it is a rsk the people take when they eneter a place like yellowstone, and they generally do not put animals down, to my knowledge, for oing what comes naturally to them.