Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[Town Heretic]

:tunes:
MOMs forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high, nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams they fade and die.
Fortune's always hiding,
I've looked everywhere,
She's forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.

She's dreaming dreams, She's scheming schemes,
She's building castles high.
They're born anew, their days are few,
Just like a sweet butterfly.
And as the daylight is dawning,
They come again in the morning!

Jaan Kenbrovin and John William Kellette, for the most part...Well, the arguments have been beaten to a fine paste, you don't like Caille's anagrams, so I thought why not commentary by way of music?

 

[Rusha]

:chuckle:

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Cont from POST# 540

Since this animal was held in captivity its fear of man may have been diminished some what, but the instincts remain!

Actually, MOM would have to argue that the tiger’s fear may have actually increased.

The boys involved were possibly acting out of a diminished capacity due to one or more factors... drugs...alcohol...maturity... their perception was that they were safe since the animal was in an enclosure and could not react in a dangerous way toward them.

What about the other 20-25% who taunt animals while they are at the zoo? What are they acting out of? Are they acting out of diminished capacity? And did those individuals not have the same perception? Were they not all made to think that they were safe?

The same way a school bully feels, he's safe due to his size and apparent aggressiveness toward other children that may not exhibit the ability to defend themselves adequately.

Are you talking about the tiger?

The tiger was captured (or breed in captivity but was never domesticated) brought to the zoo for entertainment of the human creature. A situation arises that the tiger reacts in its instinctive way, a human animal is killed and others are mauled and the human animal reacts in a predictable manner....kill the tiger...?

Partly true.

To bad, we "the human animal" could not or did not live up to its lofty ideals that we are the thinking creature of the animal kingdom! Instead we run from our responsibilities and react predictably by pointing the finger and saying "its not my fault"!

Who is saying that it is not the fault of humans that the tiger escaped?

Secondly, ones inability to live up to his or her lofty ideals does not excuse someone or something from suffering the consequences of their actions.

Some people can not handle responsibility!

MOM definitely knows that to be true. MOM also knows that this also applies to the lower animals and beasts.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, I think human life is a higher priority than other animals. Go ahead and call me crazy.

For thinking that human life is of a greater importance? Only in the world of lower animals and beasts would a human be considered crazy for arriving at that conclusion.

This does not mean we have to be cruel to animals or put them down as a knee jerk reaction.

MOM agrees. And it also doesn’t mean that we should continue to blur the line between Man and beast by elevating animals to the level of humans.

So are you proposing that when necessary, those lower animals and beasts should be put down quickly and with as little pain as possible?

What should we do with a pit bull that has shown that it will attack humans?

Well, the Bible suggests that that pit bull should be put down. But at the same time, what does the Bible really know? You are free to decide to let the animal go and give it another opportunity to kill or maul someone else .

Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.
Exodus 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Just for your information, I am not against the death penalty in theory. I just think that it should be used sparingly.

How sparingly?

Yes, I already explained this to MOM. Perhaps you should read the prior posts before zealously jumping in on a subject.

And yet you have stated that its reactions were difficult to predict? Is MOM missing something here? Lightbringer essentially states that the animal had two predictable instinctive reactions. And in response you agree, but yet you keep saying that the tigers reactions were difficult to predict (Noguru POST #305) . How does that work? How hard is it to pick from two instinctive reactions?

Cont...

 

[noguru]

And yet you have stated that its reactions were difficult to predict? Is MOM missing something here? Lightbringer essentially states that the animal had two predictable instinctive reactions. And in response you agree, but yet you keep saying that the tigers reactions were difficult to predict (Noguru POST #305) . How does that work? How hard is it to pick from two instinctive reactions?

Cont...

Yes, if you look back I mentioned the fight or flight mechanism previously.

My statement about predictability in regard to animal behavior was very clear. Predictability generally decreases as the capacity for learned behavior increases. I have repeated this several times. Do you want a percentage for how reliable a prediction can be in regard to tigers? I do not think I can give you one. Perhaps someone who specializes in feline behavior would be a better option if that is what you need.

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Cont From Post #544

Yes, I made this point as well.

And yet you believe that the tiger’s actions were difficult to predict. You made the point that the tiger’s instincts remained, but yet, somehow you came to conclude that it’s behavior was difficult to predict. If that which it does by nature remains, then how is it difficult to predict what the tiger will do?

This is exactly true. I mentioned this by saying that "At a zoo, people have the expectation that the animals cannot excape and harm them."

Someone should have taught them that expectations do not always conform with present reality. In other words, what you expect to receive from reality is not always what reality is preparing to bring.

From my experience most schoolyard bullies are actually the most cowardly. Their aggresive and boasting stance is usually a cover up for extreme feelings of insecurity. When they are confronted and challenged they generally back out of the confrontation, but will still try to claim victory.

Okay.

I think they killed the tiger because his actions demonstrated that he was a threat to humans.

And plus it had already murdered a human and mauled others.

The tiger was probably more intelligent than other tigers, which woud mean that his skills at escaping containment were greater.

Not necessarily more intelligent than other tigers. But now that it had learned how to escape, it was properly more able in the area of escaping from its enclosure.

There is also the factor that the containment unit was not built to the standard. This was a contributing factor that reeks of negligence on the zoo's part. At any rate, how do you think the zoo can justify keeping the tiger alive to the public? What would that do to public opinion?

Probably nothing. The zoo should have kept the tiger alive. This is because, judging from the present looks of things, a major part of the public might have agreed with that decision.

Yes, this is all true. We are very intelligent and have the most sophisticated nervous system of any animal. This also translates into a greater degree of individuality among our species. With such individuality there will also be greater degree of rationalizing away one's own responsibilities.

So greater individuality is supposed to be a sign of greater intelligence? When did that happen?

That is true. And some people can't handle the truth. But does that mean one should not offer such?

Depends. People generally don’t offer the truth to those who they are intent on destroying.

 

[noguru]

And yet you believe that the tiger’s actions were difficult to predict. You made the point that the tiger’s instincts remained, but yet, somehow you came to conclude that it’s behavior was difficult to predict. If that which it does by nature remains, then how is it difficult to predict what the tiger will do?

Are you purposely being difficult? I have explained this already. Predictability decreases as the capacity for learned behavior increases. This is a general truth that can be applied to all animal behavior. The reality of this becomes obvious from observing animal behavior in a large spectrum of animals. Animals have both instinctual and learned behavior. Some animals are more capable of learned behavior, but this does not entirely eliminate the influence of instinct.

Someone should have taught them that expectations do not always conform with present reality. In other words, what you expect to receive from reality is not always what reality is preparing to bring.

Could have, should have, would have.

Anyone with half a brain should realize for themselves the obvious fact that reality is not always in line with expectations.

However, when an organization is offering a public product (in this case observation of animals) there are social liabilities assumed from such a product. As a customer at a zoo it is reasonable to expect that the animals will not escape. Otherwise the people in charge at the zoo are not doing their job properly.

And plus it had already murdered a human and mauled others.

Yes that is one way the tiger demonstrated it was a threat to humans. Do you know when the tiger was killed? Was it while it was still loose? Or did they capture it again and then decide to kill it?

Not necessarily more intelligent than other tigers. But now that it had learned how to escape, it was properly more able in the area of escaping from its enclosure.

By George, you've got it! (Well kind of)

Probably nothing. The zoo should have kept the tiger alive. This is because, judging from the present looks of things, a major part of the public might have agreed with that decision.

When was the animal killed?

So greater individuality is supposed to be a sign of greater intelligence? When did that happen?

Animals that have a greater capacity for learned behavior are capable of greater individuality. This logically follows from the result of a greater capacity for learned behavior. And the idea has been confirmed by repeated observations of animal behavior. Are you denying this is the case?

Depends. People generally don’t offer the truth to those who they are intent on destroying.

Now you are off on another tangent. Who are you intent on destroying? Or are you alleging that one or some other people are not offering the public the truth?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Abandon hope all ye who argue here...:readthis:

Especially, if you are here to mindlessly argue without any logic or reason. Especially, if you are here to argue about what someone else has said, when you yourself have not thoroughly vetted that information. Especially, if you can’t understand simple scientific reasoning.

If you fall into any one of those categories, then MOM will also tell you that you need to abandon all hope.:grave:

 

[noguru]

Especially, if you are here to mindlessly argue without any logic or reason. Especially, if you are here to argue about what someone else has said, when you yourself have not thoroughly vetted that information. Especially, if you can’t understand simple scientific reasoning.

Well MOM from my experience I would be more confident to say this description is a better reflection of you than it is of TH.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Is this thread STILL going on?

Oh, my....

~SP

Sweet Pea, it’s not is this thread still going on... oh my! It is Lions and Tigers and Bears... Oh My! :guitar:

 

[noguru]

Sweet Pea, it’s not is this thread still going on... oh my! It is Lions and Tigers and Bears... Oh My! :guitar:

:chuckle: That's funny. Not only are you very adept at scientific thought but you have a keen sense of humor as well.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I will take your last paragragh as an example of how debate with you becomes hopeless and nonproductive.

How about all the other paragraphs?

Boredom definately breeds opportunity, but this is irellevant to the point I was making.

But it was relevant to the point that MOM has been trying to make. And because it is the case, that is why you were asked whether you believed that boredom had anything to do with opportunity.

This is an obvious reality to anyone who is over 5 years of age and has no baring on the point I was making.

Well evidently not, because you yourself have stated that opportunity is not a reason (Noguru POST#296).

You have turned this into a Mexican standoff.

Hola amigo! Como Estas? Éste no es tu aislamiento mexicano típico.

If you really have something of value to offer the scientific community please submit it for peer review.

Been doing that but they won’t listen.

You are repeatig yourself, repeating what I am saying and not realizing what any of it means.

How about MOM is repeating what you are saying because she is trying to get you to examine and realize what it is that you are really saying.

I have explained my view many times, and your latest paraphrasing is way off base. You can't even see where we agree and leave that out, so that we can focus on where we don't agree. This demonstrates that you are either not here to find resolve or can not distinguish what that is. Perhaps this is just a debate excersize for you.

Where? Where is it off base? Provide the proof for your assertions. How is the paraphrasing off base?

I will respond to you the same way I respond to my niece who is in that stage where she just wants to argue for arguements sake. I am growing tired of this debate. You win. You are correct. Next subject please. :wave:

And you don't have to come back and flaunt the fact that you have exhausted me with your bluster. I forfeit, you win. Now take that to the bank.

First of all, MOM is not debating for some cheap victory.

Secondly, Noguru, if you like, MOM is more that willing to examine what she wrote line by line or paragraph by paragraph. In fact, why don’t we do that? Let’s look at the first paragraph of what was written >>> MindOverMatter Post # 454
First paragraph:

Now Noguru, your main postulate or the main position that you have been maintaining throughout this thread is that lower animals and beasts, generally attack as a result of hunger, or because there is threat to their life (self-defense). Here are some of the posts which verify those assertions:

>>>Noguru Post #114

>>>Noguru Post # 124

>>>Noguru Post # 130

First, Noguru, is that not your main postulate or assertion? Is it not your belief that lower animals and beasts will generally attack as a result of hunger and threat to life or self-defense. By the way, both are the same thing.

Secondly, are those not your postings? Or did MOM make those postings up herself?

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****."

Nooooo! Not right here! Looks like you've been hanging around those animals too much. Pull your pants up Noguru, that will not be necessary today. Plus, from MOM’s standpoint, feces has never been baffling. :comeout:

 

[noguru]

First, Noguru, is that not your main postulate or assertion? Is it not your belief that lower animals and beasts will generally attack as a result of hunger and threat to life or self-defense. By the way, both are the same thing.

Secondly, are those not your postings? Or did MOM make those postings up herself?



Nooooo! Not right here! Looks like you've been hanging around those animals too much. Pull your pants up Noguru, that will not be necessary today. Plus, from MOM’s standpoint, feces has never been baffling. :comeout:

Please stop beating around the bush. Just come right out and tell me where you think my view is inaccurate. I am an adult, I can accept criticism when it is productive. And I consider the attempt to gain a more accurate view to always be productive. So please tell me exactly what you have to offer this area in terms of more accurate ideas? Is it your hypothesis on opportunity, or on boredom, or both?

 

[noguru]

Well evidently not, because you yourself have stated that opportunity is not a reason (Noguru POST#296).

I plainly stated several times now that nothing can happen without opportunity. Of course there has to be opportunity. Of course if the tiger did not have the opportunity to escape and attack it would not have. How does this help us understand animal behavior better?

I don't think you listen to what you are saying.

 

[noguru]

How about MOM is repeating what you are saying because she is trying to get you to examine and realize what it is that you are really saying.

I am very clear on the meaning of my words. You seem to be making the claim that both opportunity and boredom are also factors in how this happened. I agree with that. But I do not think these are the motivational forces behind why the tiger did what it did. They both facilitated the tigers drive to attack based on self-preservation to become manifest in an incident of aggression. These are certainly aspects that the zoo should be addressing in regard to safe animal handling in the zoo. Perhaps you think that I am denying that, but I am not.

Where? Where is it off base? Provide the proof for your assertions. How is the paraphrasing off base?

I don't really need to do that. Anyone who is interested can go back and see that for themselves.

I will say that perhaps I was inaccurate in what you have been saying. But that is because you have been very vague about your criticism.

First of all, MOM is not debating for some cheap victory.

Who would have ever expected that? I generally give people the benefit of the doubt at first. Until their motives become clear. Your motives are still unclear. It would be nice if you were to clarify.

 

[MindOverMatter]

We are one of Gods magnificent creatures as well as the Tiger, its too bad the young people were killed or maimed, but we are the thinking creature or so we say we are!

MOM likes how you just nonchalantly put that: “It’s just too bad that a bunch of young people were killed or maimed by a wild animal” No big deal huh? Just let the wild animals run around and kill people without facing any retribution for their actions? It’s just too bad?

Secondly, in case you are not aware, humans are not the only thinking creatures. All animals think! The only and biggest difference can be found in what each thinks. This is because, as a result of differing natures, all do not think alike. And since all do not think alike, that difference in thought is the significant feature that separates highly evolved humans, and lower animals and beasts.

So, it’s not that lower animals and beasts don’t think and reason, its just that their thoughts and reasons are the result of different views and beliefs which were determined by nature. And because this is the case, they are moved to arrive at differing conclusions.

The Young men were harassing the tiger while thinking they were protected (something bullies do!) oops! Guess their ability in the thought process was faulty.

The tiger killed the young men while thinking he was protected (something lower animals and beasts do!) oops! Guess its ability in the thought process was faulty.

Only a fool would attempt to place guilt or responsibility on an animal that lives and reacts to base instincts.

Only a fool would ignore the fact, that for the most part, it generally takes at least two factors to create a result.

Secondly, only a fool would ignore the fact that instinct is a form of intelligence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Lower mammals do have frontal lobes, MOM. Just not as highly developed as ours.

Uh, don’t you mean not quite as big? At least that was what some of you all have been saying. It’s all in the size?

We cannot blame lower animals for our own failures.

Who said anything about blaming them for human failures? How about blaming them and holding them responsible for their own failures?

Take human children. You can't hold a two year old legally responsible for assault and battery if he throws a tantrum and hits someone because his frontal lobes have not matured to the point of being able to plan their actions according to moral and societal standards.

So, at this point in time, you want to compare a two year old to a mature male tiger? How does that work?

Secondly, what helps the frontal lobe to "mature?"

Thirdly, whether you realize it or not, a child’s tantrum is a planned action.

A 22 year old person can be held to those standards. Lower animals don't ever achieve the frontal lobe functions we do, so they cannot ever be held to the same standards.

But yet, it is said that lower animals and beasts are able to plan and strategize. So how does that work?

>>>Study shows apes can plan ahead


>>>Now, where do I hide this? Birds plan, study shows

Why does it have to mean you're ignoring the gold?

What do you mean, “Why does it have to mean you're ignoring the gold?” What else does it mean when an investor who is able to, choose to put more money in gold than silver? Especially, if at that point in time if gold is worth more and is giving a bigger return than silver? Doesn’t that mean that that investor is failing to regard or is ignoring gold?

Mark 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.

I had a much-beloved kitty that I spent lots of money on vet bills for when she got old and sick. If it meant one of my children had to forego something they needed, I would have not spent it on the cat, but rather on the child. It's not an *either/or* proposition.

How about someone else’s kid?

Caring for animals does NOT mean *not* caring for humans. :sigh:

~SP

It does if you are ignoring the plight of your own to take care of lower animals first.

 

[lightbringer]

MOM likes how you just nonchalantly put that: “It’s just too bad that a bunch of young people were killed or maimed by a wild animal” No big deal huh? Just let the wild animals run around and kill people without facing any retribution for their actions? It’s just too bad?

Secondly, in case you are not aware, humans are not the only thinking creatures. All animals think! The only and biggest difference can be found in what each thinks. This is because, as a result of differing natures, all do not think alike. And since all do not think alike, that difference in thought is the significant feature that separates highly evolved humans, and lower animals and beasts.

So, it’s not that lower animals and beasts don’t think and reason, its just that their thoughts and reasons are the result of different views and beliefs which were determined by nature. And because this is the case, they are moved to arrive at differing conclusions.



The tiger killed the young men while thinking he was protected (something lower animals and beasts do!) oops! Guess its ability in the thought process was faulty.



Only a fool would ignore the fact, that for the most part, it generally takes at least two factors to create a result.

Secondly, only a fool would ignore the fact that instinct is a form of intelligence.

in�tel�li�gence �� (n-tl-jns) KEY �

NOUN:


The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind. See Synonyms at mind.
An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
Information; news. See Synonyms at news.

Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: "Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities" (John le Carr

in�stinct �� (nstngkt) KEY �

NOUN:

An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
A powerful motivation or impulse.
An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.


One killed, two maimed...lets not be foolish and blow it out of proportion.

And now you profess to know that an animal knows and believes that it is protected when in captivity. :kookoo:

Did you carry on a conversation with an animal to come to that conclusion?

You are correct, it does usually take two factors to create a result and both of those factors in this example where fools, human fools!

Retribution for the action of an animal? Possible retribution to the owner of the animal for failure to control it! You're smoking good strong stuff guy!

I can imagine a tiger laying around checking his enclosure with his tape measure and plotting how it can get back at all those terrible people that have captivated it for so long. You are a real trip!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Sweet Pea, we are wasting our time and breath with MOM, the only purpose MOM has, is to argue and twist statements for entertainment.

Please bring the proof that verifies your assertions. Please show where MOM is twisting your statements? MOM knows that there is no need for proof to bolster feelings and accusations when one is in the lower animal and beast world. But Lightbringer, lets try to develop and move up from that world. Because, just in case you are aware, you are not arguing with a lower animal or beast. So if you feel that MOM is twisting your statements, then please provide the proof.

Secondly, just out of curiosity, why is Mrs. Cattyfan editing your posts for you?

 

[noguru]

Secondly, only a fool would ignore the fact that instinct is a form of intelligence.

This is true. Although I am not sure if being ignorant can make someone a fool. We are all ignorant of some things. A fool is a person who chooses to remain ignorant when given the opportunity to learn.

"A wise man learns more from a fool, than a fool learns from a wiseman."