US soldier kills Baghdad tiger

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-29 12:20am

That's right. Yellowstone isn't a war zone. Iraq is.

The tiger was under fantastic levels of stress.

Blame doesn't matter. Get over it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-29 12:22am

Axis Kast wrote:That's right. Yellowstone isn't a war zone. Iraq is.

The tiger was under fantastic levels of stress.

Blame doesn't matter. Get over it.

Yes, the tiger was probably watching CNN and was seriously concerned about the possible socioeconomic ramifications of the American invasion. Good point.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-09-29 12:29am

Axis Kast wrote:Normal members of the public can do some pretty stupid things.

Concession accepted.

This is ridiculous. Do you seriously think that you could go to any zoo in the world and stick your hand in the cage and NOT be attacked by a large predator?

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-09-29 12:38am

Axis Kast wrote:And yet security precautions aren’t safe enough to ensure that an inebriated somebody can’t stick their hand into the enclosure to feed the animal.

Actually, that's the fucking job of the zoo staff. But the requirement is that the inebriated somebody isn't a trigger-happy hick with an automatic rifle, who also happens to be part of an invasion force.

In other words, nobody in the zoo had the "authority" to tell the soldiers what they could or could not do.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-29 12:41am

Axis Kast logic:

Tiger bites idiot who offers his hand as a tasty meal.
Tiger happens to be in Iraq.
Iraq was invaded.
Therefore, tiger bit idiot because Iraq was invaded and he was "under stress", not because HE'S A FUCKING TIGER AND THAT'S WHAT TIGERS DO.

I can't believe this idiot can actually remember to drop his pants before taking a dump.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-09-29 12:45am

Axis Kast wrote:If people can easily get in, that’s a problem, too.

Again I say, ordinary people can't easily get in, unless these people have a special key called M16 A2/M203 Combat Rifle.

Like the article says, "At the tiger's cage, now empty, pools of blood showed that the soldier passed through a first cage intended only for keepers and stood next to the inner cage's narrow bars."

The soldier knowingly and willingly entered an out-of-bounds area, where only "authorized and properly trained personnel" were supposed to be. I guess he assumed his special key made him "authorized".

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-29 01:12am

Axis Kast wrote:Normal members of the public can do some pretty stupid things.

Concession accepted.

Fuck you.

A predator should not be punished(and when captive and undomesticated generally arent) punished when a human does something stupid

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-29 01:18am

Darth Wong wrote:Axis Kast logic:
Tiger bites idiot who offers his hand as a tasty meal.

Tiger happens to be in Iraq.

Iraq was invaded.

Therefore, tiger bit idiot because Iraq was invaded and he was "under stress", not because HE'S A FUCKING TIGER AND THAT'S WHAT TIGERS DO.
I can't believe this idiot can actually remember to drop his pants before taking a dump.

He doesnt seem to get the "predator" part...

KAST... WHAT PART OF FLESH EATING PREDATOR DO YU NOT UNDERSTAND!!!??? STRESS LEVELS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AN ANIMAL BEING FED, WHO DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FOOD AND THE HAND!!!

An animal under stress is more likey to bite defensivly. But that tiger was not attacking in defense, while being fed, it is generally safe to assume that the animals attacks were not defensive, but predatory in nature.

Would yu like to know what applies to animals as far as psychology goes???

avlovian conditioning, and the bottom rung(and some of the second) of Maslow's pyramid.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-29 01:18am

*Pavlovian

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-09-29 01:38am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:Normal members of the public can do some pretty stupid things.

Concession accepted.
Fuck you.

A predator should not be punished(and when captive and undomesticated generally arent) punished when a human does something stupid

Exactly.....end of story.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-29 01:47am

Yet again, Kast mindlessly repeats, "Whether or not the human was an idiot for antagonizing the tiger is irrelevant because the tiger will now associate human limbs with food. I am saying this without a shred of evidence."

Well that wouldn't be an issue if people obeyed the boundaries, would it?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-29 09:22am

No, it wouldnt be. And that only applies to animals like Bears, that dont normally associate people with food. A tiger on the other hand, in the wild tey regularly take human prey. So his argument holds even less water.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 09:26am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:No, it wouldnt be. And that only applies to animals like Bears, that dont normally associate people with food. A tiger on the other hand, in the wild tey regularly take human prey. So his argument holds even less water.

I mentioned the story of what a Tiger did at Dhaka. A Tiger will likely attack and kill you if you give it the chance to do so.

Regarding wild Tigers they do not prefer humans to other prey. Only when injured or disabled does a Tiger become a maneater.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-29 10:30pm

Wong, they're called bombs. They fell throughout Baghdad. They cause stress for animals that have no fucking idea what they are. They cause stress for people who do know what the fuck they are. But obviously, that was too much. It escaped you, didn't it?

Now, for everyone: stop fucking harping on blame. The animal still ends up with all the negative ramifications whether or not the human stuck his hand in the cage or the thing escaped on its own and stalked the Baghdad streets.

Animals that attack human beings while under high stress are shot and killed as a matter of routine. It happens. Others besides myself have made that much clear.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-29 10:36pm

Axis Kast wrote:Wong, they're called bombs. They fell throughout Baghdad. They cause stress for animals that have no fucking idea what they are. They cause stress for people who do know what the fuck they are. But obviously, that was too much. It escaped you, didn't it?

Ah yes, the tiger was traumatized and left in a horrifying mental state where it would actually eat living creatures if presented with the opportunity, even months after the fact. Of course, it's also possible that TIGERS ARE FUCKING PREDATORS, you blithering idiot.

Now, for everyone: stop fucking harping on blame. The animal still ends up with all the negative ramifications whether or not the human stuck his hand in the cage or the thing escaped on its own and stalked the Baghdad streets.

Except the thing did NOT escape on its own and stalk the Baghdad streets, moron. This is exactly like saying that it's OK to shoot a prisoner in his cell because you would have shot him if he escaped.

Animals that attack human beings while under high stress are shot and killed as a matter of routine.

Sure, even if that "stress" consisted exclusively of the occasional loud noise in the distance which the tiger would not understand and probably confuse for thunder, months before the event in question

Meanwhile, there have been many examples of tigers biting humans without this "stress" you seem to believe is so necessary. Maybe it's because they're fucking meat eaters, you idiot.

It happens. Others besides myself have made that much clear.

In situations which are totally irrelevant to this one. A small detail which apparently escaped your feeble mind.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-29 10:41pm

Ah yes, the tiger was traumatized and left in a horrifying mental state where it would actually eat living creatures if presented with the opportunity, even months after the fact. Of course, it's also possible that TIGERS ARE FUCKING PREDATORS, you blithering idiot.

The psychological pressure of the bombing would have been significant. Perhaps you didn’t notice: Yellowstone deals with aggressive animals and predators not merely on the basis of the attack itself, but also the animal’s stress level.

Except the thing did NOT escape on its own and stalk the Baghdad streets, moron. This is exactly like saying that it's OK to shoot a prisoner in his cell because you would have shot him if he escaped.

A tiger is not a human being, moron. The same lessons are reinforced either way.

Sure, even if that "stress" consisted exclusively of the occasional loud noise in the distance which the tiger would not understand and probably confuse for thunder, months before the event in question

Animals flee in fear from excessively loud, unusual noises. Successive bomb bursts probably would have caused substantial stress.

Meanwhile, there have been many examples of tigers biting humans without this "stress" you seem to believe is so necessary. Maybe it's because they're fucking meat eaters, you idiot.

The stress makes the impact of this situation far worse.

In situations which are totally irrelevant to this one. A small detail which apparently escaped your feeble mind.

Not so fast. You’ve challenged that aggressive animals needed to be put down even outside the context of this particular case.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-29 10:53pm

Axis Kast wrote:The psychological pressure of the bombing would have been significant. Perhaps you didn’t notice: Yellowstone deals with aggressive animals and predators not merely on the basis of the attack itself, but also the animal’s stress level.

Oh right, some loud noises 3 months ago have left it in a permanently agitated, unnatural state, as proven by the fact that it actually behaved like a tiger

Except the thing did NOT escape on its own and stalk the Baghdad streets, moron. This is exactly like saying that it's OK to shoot a prisoner in his cell because you would have shot him if he escaped.
A tiger is not a human being, moron.

Nice way to evade the analogy; just point out that it's an analogy instead of a precise description. Did you learn this debate technique from Sesame Street?

Animals flee in fear from excessively loud, unusual noises. Successive bomb bursts probably would have caused substantial stress.

Good thing no animal ever experiences nearby lightning strikes, then. Oh wait a minute ...

The stress makes the impact of this situation far worse.

And now you're using your assumption of severe permanent stress in order to support your claim of severe permanent stress, making the animal dangerously psychotic rather than simply a NATURAL PREDATOR. Nice circular logic, Kast. I see you still think like a child.

In situations which are totally irrelevant to this one. A small detail which apparently escaped your feeble mind.
Not so fast. You’ve challenged that aggressive animals needed to be put down even outside the context of this particular case.

I challenged that naturally dangerous animals in fucking zoos should be put down when some idiot enters their cage, moron. Learn to read.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-29 11:21pm

The psychological pressure of the bombing would have been significant. Perhaps you didn’t notice: Yellowstone deals with aggressive animals and predators not merely on the basis of the attack itself, but also the animal’s stress level.

Stress, as in "now and immediate" stress. An animal that is not getting nough to eat, is under stress, an animal that was just ousted from its territory is under stress.

An animal that went though a thunderstorm(or a bombing) 3 months ago, is not under stress.

Animals flee in fear from excessively loud, unusual noises. Successive bomb bursts probably would have caused substantial stress.

Short term stress MAYBE you fucking dombass. But a thunderstorm would not effect an animal months after the fact. If they did,lactic acid would build up in their system, and the stress would kill them.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-09-29 11:37pm

Stupid tiger, instead of chewing on the soldier's arm to relieve stress, he should have gone to the golf course.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-09-30 05:18am

My, my... Making a complete fool of yourself on two threads simultaneously? Careful, Comical Axi. You simply must learn to pace yourself.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-09-30 10:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:
A tiger is not a human being, moron.
Nice way to evade the analogy; just point out that it's an analogy instead of a precise description. Did you learn this debate technique from Sesame Street?
.

I think it was obvious to most poeple that the relevant differnece between humans and animals that Kast was pointing out was that there are situations in which we'd kill animals in which we wouldn't kill people. To tell the truth, I don't have any problems with killing animals on the precautionary principle unless thye're primates or dolphins, but I would hesitate to kill a human just because I thought it was likely he'd commit violence a second time. Do you think you might be being deliberatly dense, Darth Wong?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-30 10:28pm

Symmetry wrote:I think it was obvious to most poeple that the relevant differnece between humans and animals that Kast was pointing out was that there are situations in which we'd kill animals in which we wouldn't kill people.

Except that this had nothing to do with the point being made, dumb-fuck. The point was that Axis treats "loose in the wild" and "caged" as equivalent, because a caged animal could theoretically get loose. Ergo, he figures you might as well kill the animal in the cage, because you would kill it if it was running around a campsite eating people. The analogy is used to illustrate how stupid it is to consider the two situations equivalent, not to argue that animals and humans are identical, you idiot.

To tell the truth, I don't have any problems with killing animals on the precautionary principle unless thye're primates or dolphins, but I would hesitate to kill a human just because I thought it was likely he'd commit violence a second time.

If a man is likely to commit violence, you would PUT HIM IN A CAGE, where he can't hurt anybody (hint: look up the word "prison" in a dictionary).

Do you think you might be being deliberatly dense, Darth Wong?

No, but you certainly are.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-09-30 10:30pm

Funny having someone named Symetry in a debate about tigers....

oh well too much William Blake.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-09-30 10:42pm

Axis Kast wrote: Wong, they're called bombs. They fell throughout Baghdad. They cause stress for animals that have no fucking idea what they are. They cause stress for people who do know what the fuck they are. But obviously, that was too much. It escaped you, didn't it?

Now, for everyone: stop fucking harping on blame. The animal still ends up with all the negative ramifications whether or not the human stuck his hand in the cage or the thing escaped on its own and stalked the Baghdad streets.

Wow, it took all that to get you to insult someone. I've been reading this, waiting for you to lose you're temper, expecting it from the 3rd page, and this is all you say after 7 pages of being bullied by everyone else. I salute you.

P.S. While its true that no cage is 100% foolproof (and it will be tested by fools again eventually, even if all the US soldiers leave tommorow), I think that given the rarity of Bengal tigers, it would probably have been a good idea in this case to let it live even though it had become more likely to attack humans. On the other hand, if the other soldier shot the tiger to save his buddy, that neccesary (though we all agree they should still all get canned for just being there).

Incidentally, I also think they're right about the stress from the bomb blasts fading, but I'm sure there were a lot of other factors due to the general situation.

Oh, and Kast? I don't suppose you know your Briggs-Mayer personality type? I'm interested in proving a personal theory.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-30 10:45pm

Kast is definitely being an idiot, and he's aggressively defending a ridiculous point (the whole notion that the tiger bit the man because of stress rather than its natural meat-eater tendencies is almost hilariously funny, yet he takes it seriously because he's afraid to lose face by conceding).

However, don't you think you're on thin ice when you poke at him for being eager with the insults when your very first post in this thread was your accusation that I'm being "dense"?