Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

MindOverMatter: "How about in the case of a wild animal that has escaped, murdered, mauled, and that is prepared to continue to murder and maul other humans that are in its path? What is the written assessment for that?"

Murdered; to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
Doesn't pertain to the Tiger!

Come again? Why? Why does murder not pertain to a Tiger? Did the Tiger not unlawfully kill a human being? Was there no premeditated malice involved? Are we now talking about a different Tiger?

Where did you come up with this?

From your responses. All of your responses seem to suggest that you are of the mind that the police should have ignored the fact that the tiger was running around killing and mauling people. And instead, if you had your way, you would have concentrated on first finding the people who were in charge of the zoo.

>>>Lightbringer POST #408

>>>Lightbringer POST #410

>>>Lightbringer POST #413

Laws were developed by humans for humans ( the thinking creature? ) animals are not of the same level of cognition, so how do you apply something that requires an advance level of reasoning to something that does not have the ability?

Animals are not of the same level of cognition? Animals do not have an advanced level of reasoning? Animals do not have the ability? Say’s who? The scientific evidence refutes you.


>>>Apes demonstrate ability to plan ahead

>>>Birds, Like Humans, Can Plan Ahead

>>>Young Chimp Beats College Students

That last article is especially funny. This is because either the frontal lobes of our college students are shrinking or the frontal lobes of chimps are expanding? :darwinsm:

By the way, who was your science teacher?

Where do you see anything that I said that would make you believe I had a problem with what the officers did?

>>>Lightbringer POST # 408

You keep trying to bring the lower animal up to the same level as humans, may I ask what level of education you have obtained?

And you and your friends at PETA and ALF keep trying to take the lower animal past the level of humans. May MOM ask what level of education you have obtained?

A North American Mountain Lion.

It was a pet, we lived together.

What? Is MOM speaking to a North American Mountain Lion?

Have you ever had pet?

No thank you, MOM has just finished eating. Thank you for the offer though.

 

[MindOverMatter]

MOM: "It seems that Lightbringer is proposing that maybe the police officers should have tried to talk to the tiger and reason with it."

You are the only person trying to apply human rules, morals, or responsibility to an animal! How are you able to think that way?

Actually, it is quite easy. First, take a plane with a Human and a beast on it.

Secondly, fly to an altitude of 10000 feet.

Thirdly, drop both out and see if human rules apply to both.


Another experiment:

First, grab, blindfold, and plug the ears of both a Human and a beast.

Secondly, have both walk down the side of a narrow street.

Thirdly, invite a drunk driver to drive down that street and see if human rules apply to both.

Would you also apply these to a child 8 years old. If not, why not?

Of course MOM would. Didn’t know that human rules, morals and responsibility did not apply to 8 year olds? No wonder many of the kids are so rotten nowadays. You all have them believing that they are exempt from human rules, morals, and responsibility:baby:

By the way, at what age do you start applying human rules, morals, and responsibility? Never new that there was a specific age, so can you please inform MOM?

 

[MindOverMatter]

MOM, I notice that you did not respond to lightbringers question about 8 year old children .

Hadn’t gotten around to it. If you will look now, you will see that there is a response. There is a time and place for every response.


Proverbs 15:23 A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word [spoken] in due season, how good [is it]!

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.

 

[noguru]

Hadn’t gotten around to it. If you will look now, you will see that there is a response. There is a time and place for every response.


Proverbs 15:23 A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word [spoken] in due season, how good [is it]!

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.

Could you clarify your statement? I have a non-connect.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Look, this thread is long past beaten to death.

How is it beaten to death? There are so many things still to argue. We have yet to get to the best part. So this thread may be long but it is far from dead.

The way I see it is that the tiger cannot be held responsible unless it is capable of moral reasoning (aka equal to humans).

It is. Have you not been paying attention? The tiger is capable of moral reasoning in the same manner as humans. Have you not seen that there are some humans whose moral reasonings are equal to the tiger’s?

Either the lower animals *are* equal to humans and we can hold them morally responsible for their actions, or they are *not* equal to humans and we cannot.

And so, you are of the mind that before someone or something can be held responsible for its action, that thing must be “equal” to humans? When did that happen? Who established that criterion ?

Now, if you want to use that criterion, the question that inevitably arises is, which humans? Being that the actions and movements of humans are varied (therefore rendering all humans unequal), which humans should the lower animals or beasts have to become equal to?

That the tiger was killed is a matter of practicality, not ethics or morality (though the PETA folks might think it is, I don't agree) except in that it would be unethical to allow that particular tiger to interact with the public again.

You are contradicting yourself. If the tiger was killed as a matter of practicality, then it was killed as a matter of morals and ethics. Maybe you need to go and study the definition of PRACTICAL. >>>>PRACTICAL

PRACTICAL: adjective: 1 a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal *a practical question* *for all practical purposes* b : being such in practice or effect : VIRTUAL *a practical failure*
2 : actively engaged in some course of action or occupation *a practical farmer*
3 : capable of being put to use or account : USEFUL *he had a practical knowledge of French*
4 a : disposed to action as opposed to speculation or abstraction b (1) : qualified by practice or practical training *a good practical mechanic* (2) : designed to supplement theoretical training by experience
5 : concerned with voluntary action and ethical decisions *practical reason*

IMO, tigers don't have the capacity for moral reasoning and therefore cannot be blamed, held responsible, or otherwise faulted for the outcome here.

You better look again, because your opinion is not substantiated by reality? Tigers have a capacity for moral reasoning. They can be blamed, held responsible, or otherwise faulted for the outcome here. The tiger morally reasoned that the young men were threats and therefore bad for its life.

I value animals greatly, though not as much as people, but to simultaneously claim tigers have moral responsibility and that they are not equal to humans is a bit "off"...

~SP

And this is where you are suffering from the illusion. Lower animals and beasts do not have to be equal to humans in order for them to be held responsible for their actions. If that were the case, then no one or no thing could be held responsible for their actions. If you can show where this is evident in nature then MOM will concede that you are correct.

 

[lightbringer]

Actually, it is quite easy. First, take a plane with a Human and a beast on it.

Secondly, fly to an altitude of 10000 feet.

Thirdly, drop both out and see if human rules apply to both.


Another experiment:

First, grab, blindfold, and plug the ears of both a Human and a beast.

Secondly, have both walk down the side of a narrow street.

Thirdly, invite a drunk driver to drive down that street and see if human rules apply to both.



Of course MOM would. Didn’t know that human rules, morals and responsibility did not apply to 8 year olds? No wonder many of the kids are so rotten nowadays. You all have them believing that they are exempt from human rules, morals, and responsibility:baby:

By the way, at what age do you start applying human rules, morals, and responsibility? Never new that there was a specific age, so can you please inform MOM?

Thank you sir! You have said all that you need to to convince most that debate is not your reason for being here!

 

[MindOverMatter]

I'm sure MOM will respond after figuring out how to twist the statement around, seems thats the name of MOM's game. :banana:

Again, please bring the proof that verifies your assertions. Please show where MOM has twisted 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. Lightbringer, you are not arguing with a lower animal or beast; therefore, please try to move up from that world.

So, if you feel that MOM is twisting your statements, then please provide the proof.

I've never head such childish inane drivel coming from adults before. :vomit:

Are you not able to hear yourself speak?

Lower animals being held to man made laws. :rotfl:

Priceless!

One wouldn’t expect it to make any sense to an individual who was trying to elevate them beyond the level of humans.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Words, the definitions of words, the concept of evil, right or wrong, are all man made and apply only to man not animals or things.

:rotfl: Oh you gotta love it! And so, in essence, what you are saying is this: All of the descriptive and attributive words which were invented by Man, were made by him for the express purpose of describing himself. In other words, all of these descriptive and attributive words, came from Man sitting around looking at and only interacting with himself. :rotfl:

So Lightbringer, a plant or animal can never be dangerous or beautiful? Was your mountain lion companion considered big or small? Is there a such thing as hazardous material? Can cyanide be considered poisonous? Can the venom of snakes be considered deadly? Can a dog be vicious? Oh you gotta love debating you guys. And the worst part of all this is that no one even noticed and cared to correct you. What is MOM talking about? Hell, how can they correct you if they themselves don't even know any better. No wonder chimps are now beating college students. :rotfl:

Secondly, if good, evil, right, wrong are only applicable to Man, then why is he spending so much time and money trying to rid the world of all those “evil” and dangerous diseases?

If your computer has a glitch, is it because of, a mechanical failure, a software failure, the input of a virus from another malicious human, or has your computer developed morals and attitudes and has decided that it really doesn't like you?

Why are you applying the word “failure” to the computer? The concept of failure should not be applied to computers. It is a Man-made concept.

MOM, you are a trip!:rotfl:

Maybe if you laid off the crazy tobacco for awhile things may come back to reality.

Which reality? Do you want MOM to come to your reality? Do you want MOM to come to the reality where the concept of evil, right or wrong, apply only to man and not animals or things? Oh you gotta love it!

Shall we continue comparing apples and oranges? :dead:

Because words, the definitions of words, the concept of evil, right or wrong, are all man made and apply only to man not animals or things, we can’t.

 

[noguru]

Why are you applying the word “failure” to the computer? The concept of failure should not be applied to computers. It is a Man-made concept.

All words are man-made. Words are man's attempt to explain things.

Because words, the definitions of words, the concept of evil, right or wrong, are all man made and apply only to man not animals or things, we can’t.

The concept of good and evil, right and wrong, are designed to give value to ethical and moral questions. The consensus between most sane humans is that most people are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. The are some people who do not seem to understand this difference. These definitions are used exclusively for humans, because it also seems that animals cannot understand this difference.

Seriously MOM, I think you took the book "Animal Farm" too literally.

 

[zoo22]

Did human morals apply to the dead horse that's being beaten in here?

 

[Town Heretic]

Did human morals apply to the dead horse that's being beaten in here?

Sadly, it was mostly dead when someone rode in on it in the first place (from dragging around that old shame filled guilt wagon)...A few of us finished it off trying to make it drink something (don't think yourself blameless either you house of cages you)...Also KIA, the whole hog that everybody brought to the party at one point or another, and the old dog who, as it turns out, couldn't learn a new trick. Missing and presumed dead from over use, the bird in the hand...

 

[Sweet Pea]

Sadly, it was mostly dead when someone rode in on it in the first place (from dragging around that old shame filled guilt wagon)...A few of us finished it off trying to make it drink something (don't think yourself blameless either you house of cages you)...Also KIA, the whole hog that everybody brought to the party at one point or another, and the old dog who, as it turns out, couldn't learn a new trick. Missing and presumed dead from over use, the bird in the hand...

ROTFL!!! I return from my three day exile, and this thread is STILL going on!!!!! Some things never change!

~SP

 

[Ktoyou]

Sadly, it was mostly dead when someone rode in on it in the first place (from dragging around that old shame filled guilt wagon)...A few of us finished it off trying to make it drink something (don't think yourself blameless either you house of cages you)...Also KIA, the whole hog that everybody brought to the party at one point or another, and the old dog who, as it turns out, couldn't learn a new trick. Missing and presumed dead from over use, the bird in the hand...

Some people side with the hogs, some the dogs. I am on the side of the dogs and I eat the hogs. Hogs defenders do not eat dogs, they eat nothing but packages meat and complain and it because they are insecure about what it is.

I side with humans!

 

[Caille]

Just for fun, I thought I'd respond to Turbo's OP, and not the interminable Marred Oven Mitt - fest that this thread has become.

These clips are from Fox's "The Morning Show With Mike and Juliet," January 3, 2008:

Dave Salmoni on The Morning Show

Yes they are!

A tiger that escaped from the San Franscisco Zoo on Christmas Day, 2007. The tiger killed one person and injured two others before being shot to death by police.

Yay police shooters!

Dave Salmoni of Animal Planet, a "large predator expert," feels sorry for the zoo keepers who "lost basically a family member," and says that "obviously, the biggest victim... is the tiger who got killed."

Booo! Bad Dave Salmoni! In keeping with the general atmosphere here, I would suggest that Dave be flogged and then painfuly and slowly executed!

Co-host Juliet interrupted with mild sarcasm toward Salmoni , "The person that got killed was a pretty big victim, too."

Juliet too! How dare a woman contradict a man!

Up until she said that, Salmoni didn't even acknowledge that a person was killed, and had only mentioned the people who had been mauled in passing between his points about the suffering zoo keepers and the tiger being the "biggest victim." He cares more about the dead tiger and its zoo-keeper "family" than about the young man who was killed or his actual family. What a jerk!

Kill them both! Slowly and painfully!

 

[lightbringer]

One wouldn’t expect it to make any sense to an individual who was trying to elevate them beyond the level of humans.

Actually you are attempting to apply human (a higher level animal) intelligence, thought and reasoning to lower animals....and holding them responsible under the eyes of the law and or moral rules of man (the higher level animal), I'm not sure that you should be considered to be one of those (higher level animals) since your reasoning skills seem to be very lacking and immature.:dizzy:

 

[Caille]

Hey!

Where'd MOM go?

 

[Caille]

Actually, it is quite easy. First, take a plane with a Human and a beast on it.

Secondly, fly to an altitude of 10000 feet.

Thirdly, drop both out and see if human rules apply to both.


Another experiment:

First, grab, blindfold, and plug the ears of both a Human and a beast.

Secondly, have both walk down the side of a narrow street.

Thirdly, invite a drunk driver to drive down that street and see if human rules apply to both.



Of course MOM would. Didn’t know that human rules, morals and responsibility did not apply to 8 year olds? No wonder many of the kids are so rotten nowadays. You all have them believing that they are exempt from human rules, morals, and responsibility:baby:

By the way, at what age do you start applying human rules, morals, and responsibility? Never new that there was a specific age, so can you please inform MOM?

Oh No!

Did Mom put her experiment in human rules to the test and discover that laws of nature and human rules are different?

Has anybody seen MOM splatting into their backyard recently? Followed closely by a splatting tiger?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[JPPT1974]

Yeah inquiring minds do want to know!

 

[zoo22]

Actually, it is quite easy. First, take a plane with a Human and a beast on it.

Secondly, fly to an altitude of 10000 feet.

Thirdly, drop both out and see if human rules apply to both.

If you're talking about the falling and hitting ground ... I always thought that the falling/hitting ground thing was a tiger rule that we humans went by. Or is that what you mean? Tiger rules applying to both?

Another experiment:

First, grab, blindfold, and plug the ears of both a Human and a beast.

Secondly, have both walk down the side of a narrow street.

Thirdly, invite a drunk driver to drive down that street and see if human rules apply to both.

Is it a drunk tiger behind the wheel?

 

[noguru]

Hey!

Where'd MOM go?

I think she went to double check her sources.