US soldier kills Baghdad tiger

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-01 03:25pm

We like crucified threads and trolls.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-10-01 03:28pm

Axis Kast wrote:The tiger was living under significant levels of stress, one result of which was to make the negative impacts of the attack even more relevant.

That has been sorely said over and over again by you and I'm not going to be convinced by repetition.
Your a broken record tape man.~Jason

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-01 05:00pm

Axis Kast wrote:The tiger was living under significant levels of stress, one result of which was to make the negative impacts of the attack even more relevant.

I like the way you keep saying that, everybody else says "give us evidence", and you just mindlessly repeat yourself like the blithering idiot that you are. I'm starting to wonder whether you're a real person or a chatbot.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-10-01 05:10pm

AdmiralKanos wrote: I like the way you keep saying that, everybody else says "give us evidence", and you just mindlessly repeat yourself like the blithering idiot that you are. I'm starting to wonder whether you're a real person or a chatbot.

They havent reached that level of refinement yet for artifical stupidity routines.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-10-01 05:29pm

Axis Kast wrote:The tiger was living under significant levels of stress, one result of which was to make the negative impacts of the attack even more relevant.

Yes, it was living under certain levels of stress. Tell me do you think a wild animals life is carefree? Oh right bombs cause the unnatural stress the kind that make them attack humans. Please explain to us why you think that is merit enough to have it put down.....considering it didn't behaving in an abnormal manner? You do realize that this attack was natural......this is what Tigers do!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-01 09:08pm

Well I'm glad this has been settled. Every time there is a thunderstorm near a zoo, we should kill all large predators inside, because the thunderstorm elevates their stress levels and could cause them to viciously maul zoo patrons who go into areas that they're not supposed to be in months after the event.

Wow, just summing up Kast's logic makes me feel dumber.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-10-01 09:15pm

Come on, guys. Don't blast Axis so badly. At the very least you gotta admire his PERSERVERENCE(sp?) If nothing else. We're moving in circles here, though. Axis, As a Semi-neutral party...can you drop the stress arguments? I don't think anyone will ever concede to that point. To coin a phrase: "You can't beat a tank with a bat. Well, you can, but that's just stupid."

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-10-01 09:17pm

Chardok wrote:Come on, guys. Don't blast Axis so badly. At the very least you gotta admire his PERSERVERENCE(sp?) If nothing else. We're moving in circles here, though. Axis, As a Semi-neutral party...can you drop the stress arguments? I don't think anyone will ever concede to that point. To coin a phrase: "You can't beat a tank with a bat. Well, you can, but that's just stupid."

He's been repeating the same shit all over again. His perserverance would be admired if he can actually come up with something else or to back that "stress" thing. Right now he's just being plain annoying.~Jason

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-01 10:38pm

I've made my position manifestly clear.

Why is stress an issue? Because this country's largest wildlife management organizations use stress as a quallifier to determine the dangers posed by predators in captivity.

Why would the tiger be stressed? Because unlike normal animals, it was stuck in a cage while Baghdad was bombarded and was then party to God knows what kind of chaos during looting of its immediate surroundings.

Why does the stress matter? Because any negative lessons learned as a result of the attack on the human being are able to better degrade any existing psychological barriers or deterrence to attacks on human begins. The tiger would probably attack a human that entered its enclosure, and especially a human with food - but would it go after every human that was sitting near the bars as well?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-01 10:48pm

Axis Kast wrote:I've made my position manifestly clear.

Of course you have. Unfortunately, you have failed to support it.

Why is stress an issue? Because this country's largest wildlife management organizations use stress as a quallifier to determine the dangers posed by predators in captivity.

Prove that the kind of stress they're talking about (ie- unacceptable living conditions) is somehow equivalent to sporadic loud noises months before the incident in question. Oh wait, I just caught you in another one of your completely bullshit distortions of fact, didn't I? Sorry.

Why does the stress matter? Because any negative lessons learned as a result of the attack on the human being are able to better degrade any existing psychological barriers or deterrence to attacks on human begins.

So let me see if I've got your argument straight: there were some loud noises a few months ago, and a lot of shooting and looting in the zoo since then (which you can't substantiate at all), so you figure the tiger lost its respect for humans and is now willing to eat them, whereas a normal tiger would not. It sounds to me like your keepers need to increase your daily dosage of thorazine.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-01 11:09pm

Prove that the kind of stress they're talking about (ie- unacceptable living conditions) is somehow equivalent to sporadic loud noises months before the incident in question. Oh wait, I just caught you in another one of your completely bullshit distortions of fact, didn't I? Sorry.

"Sporadic loud noises months before?" Try continuous loud noises followed by intermittent ones for weeks at a time.

So let me see if I've got your argument straight: there were some loud noises a few months ago, and a lot of shooting and looting in the zoo since then (which you can't substantiate at all), so you figure the tiger lost its respect for humans and is now willing to eat them, whereas a normal tiger would not. It sounds to me like your keepers need to increase your daily dosage of thorazine.

People looted the zoo and animals were actually stolen according to some reports. It's safe to assume that there was "celebratory" gunfire.

The tiger is more likely to display increased aggression toward humans now - even those not engaging in stupid, provocative behavior.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-01 11:24pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Prove that the kind of stress they're talking about (ie- unacceptable living conditions) is somehow equivalent to sporadic loud noises months before the incident in question. Oh wait, I just caught you in another one of your completely bullshit distortions of fact, didn't I? Sorry.
"Sporadic loud noises months before?" Try continuous loud noises followed by intermittent ones for weeks at a time.

No, sporadic loud noises. The occasional explosion; do you honestly think that there were constant explosions 24 hours a day?

By the way, I like the way you simply ignored the most salient part of the point (about how you shamelessly abused the animal welfare definition of "stress", ie- unacceptable living conditions, as an excuse to prop up your bullshit).

So let me see if I've got your argument straight: there were some loud noises a few months ago, and a lot of shooting and looting in the zoo since then (which you can't substantiate at all), so you figure the tiger lost its respect for humans and is now willing to eat them, whereas a normal tiger would not. It sounds to me like your keepers need to increase your daily dosage of thorazine.
People looted the zoo and animals were actually stolen according to some reports. It's safe to assume that there was "celebratory" gunfire.

Tell me, do you have any arguments about this subject which are not based on assumptions and vague unnamed references? And when did this looting take place? Oh yeah, months before the incident in question. Not only that, but you are still misusing one definition of stress in favour of another. Something which briefly terrifies an animal does not leave him permanently psychopathic; my dog quakes with fear during every thunderstorm, but this doesn't mean he goes and attacks my kids in the morning, you idiot.

The tiger is more likely to display increased aggression toward humans now - even those not engaging in stupid, provocative behavior.

For the HUNDREDTH FUCKING TIME, BACK UP THIS STATEMENT INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING IT. Show EVIDENCE that the tiger was more aggressive than a normal tiger.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-10-01 11:25pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Why does the stress matter? Because any negative lessons learned as a result of the attack on the human being are able to better degrade any existing psychological barriers or deterrence to attacks on human begins. The tiger would probably attack a human that entered its enclosure, and especially a human with food - but would it go after every human that was sitting near the bars as well?

I can deal with the rest of your post but this is where your argument completely falls apart.

I'm going to make it as simple as possible. Wild animals have no deterrance or psychological barriers against attacking humans.....that's why they are considered wild, that's why they are kept in a cage, that's why most modern zoo's have "lines of defenses" to stop stupid people from getting attacked.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-10-01 11:26pm

Darth Wong wrote: For the HUNDREDTH FUCKING TIME, BACK UP THIS STATEMENT INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING IT. Show EVIDENCE that the tiger was more aggressive than a normal tiger.

What is a more aggressive that normal tiger? LOL do you know what I mean Wong?

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-01 11:32pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:This thread is getting ridiculous.

It's been ridiculous for a long time. Axis honestly seems to believe that tigers have natural inhibitions against hurting human beings, and that it takes a stressful event to break down these imaginary barriers.

Perhaps he would like to demonstrate his faith in this theory by freely offering his unprotected hand to a wild tiger which escaped the traumatic American invasion of Baghdad.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-01 11:38pm

This thread, from what I observe, got ridiculous a long time ago. Suffice to say: anybody who can't figure out why dangerous wild, predatory animals are kept in cages in the first place is, by definition, an imbecile.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-01 11:40pm

Bombing continued for hours at a time. It wasn't merely a seasonal thunderstorm but a continuous barrage of sound.

The unacceptable living conditions would have developed during the run-up to war when the zoo's staff vacated to avoid death, looters, etc.

Your dog, Wong, might not be left with significant trauma after a short thunderstorm - but how about as a result of constant bombing, the stay of criminals in your home, a breakdown in living conditions, and the mauling of a human being?

The argument isn't that the tiger was never a danger, but that it was now more likely to display arbitrary aggression. Animals in national parks technically have access to stupid humans, but do not regularly stalk or kill them. Most avoid human contact.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-01 11:50pm

Axis Kast wrote:Bombing continued for hours at a time. It wasn't merely a seasonal thunderstorm but a continuous barrage of sound.

Do you know what the word "continuous" means, you idiot?

The unacceptable living conditions would have developed during the run-up to war when the zoo's staff vacated to avoid death, looters, etc.

And then they would have been relieved when the conditions improved. Real animals in the wild face the spectre of starvation and death every fucking day of their lives, idiot. Do you think wild tigers lay around in little tiger resorts, sipping tiger pina coladas and relaxing to the sound of John Coltrane? Have you ever seen a real tiger up close? Do you ever go to the fucking zoo? I've seen tigers up close, and if that cage weren't there, you know you'd be a dead man. No "stress" is necessary to make tigers dangerous, and you are merely tattoing "MORON" on your forehead the longer you participate in this ridiculous Quixotic battle to "prove" that it's somehow out of the ordinary for a tiger to bite a human who stupidly offers his hand.

Your dog, Wong, might not be left with significant trauma after a short thunderstorm - but how about as a result of constant bombing, the stay of criminals in your home, a breakdown in living conditions, and the mauling of a human being?

Precision bombing is not "constant"; it is sporadic. If the Americans dropped enough bombs on Baghdad for constant noise, Baghdad wouldn't be there any more. Gah, the fucking stupidity is incredible.

As for the rest, I don't think my dog would know whether people staying in my home were fucking criminals, since I doubt he knows how to look up criminal records. And a "breakdown in living conditions" would only approximate the natural world, where animals must forage for food in order to stave off starvation. And finally, the mauling of a human being has happened many times without the tiger becoming permanently dangerous or being put down, and when I gave several links showing examples of precisely this, you simply dismissed them as "exceptions to the rule". A rule which you have yet to justify.

The argument isn't that the tiger was never a danger, but that it was now more likely to display arbitrary aggression.

And for the umpteenth fucking time, JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM INSTEAD OF MINDLESSLY REPEATING IT.

Animals in national parks technically have access to stupid humans, but do not regularly stalk or kill them. Most avoid human contact.

Oh, so this tiger "stalked and killed" somebody now? Fascinating; there must have been a whole hidden section of the story that I didn't notice

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-02 01:21am

The bombings went on for days and were at times quite pronounced. Hell, we watched it on television.

Forage for food in a cage in the middle of Baghdad? You've got to be fucking kidding.

Stress increases the tiger's unpredictability. The liklihood of another attack is very great at this point.

The dog in your home wouldn't notice loud, obnoxious activity perhaps puncuated by sporradic gunfire and worsening living conditions?

There are always exceptions to the rule. The point remains: animals under high stress are always viewed in a harsher light after aggression.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-02 01:29am

Axis Kast wrote:The bombings went on for days and were at times quite pronounced. Hell, we watched it on television.

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.

Forage for food in a cage in the middle of Baghdad? You've got to be fucking kidding.

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

Stress increases the tiger's unpredictability. The liklihood of another attack is very great at this point.

Prove it.

The dog in your home wouldn't notice loud, obnoxious activity perhaps puncuated by sporradic gunfire and worsening living conditions?

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

There are always exceptions to the rule. The point remains: animals under high stress are always viewed in a harsher light after aggression.

No, animals which are deemed a continuing threat are viewed in a harsher light. A mama bear whose cub was killed by campers will have an obvious instinctive desire to seek revenge, thus making her dangerous. A circus elephant which has been ruthlessly abused by human trainers may become more dangerous. But a tiger who heard some loud popping noises 3 months ago is only analogous if you're a blithering idiot. It's already extremely dangerous, in case you're too fucking stupid to read books.

Moreover, you are still ignoring the fact that we're talking about an animal in a cage, not one running around wild.

It appears you intend to "win" by simply repeating your idiocy until everyone grows fatigued and gives up on trying to crack through your impenetrable wall of ignorance.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-10-02 02:06am

Axis Kast wrote:
Stress increases the tiger's unpredictability. The liklihood of another attack is very great at this point.

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.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-02 02:18am

Patrick Degan wrote:Suffice to say: anybody who can't figure out why dangerous wild, predatory animals are kept in cages in the first place is, by definition, an imbecile.

Comical Axi wrote:Bombing continued for hours at a time. It wasn't merely a seasonal thunderstorm but a continuous barrage of sound.

The unacceptable living conditions would have developed during the run-up to war when the zoo's staff vacated to avoid death, looters, etc.

Your dog, Wong, might not be left with significant trauma after a short thunderstorm - but how about as a result of constant bombing, the stay of criminals in your home, a breakdown in living conditions, and the mauling of a human being?

The argument isn't that the tiger was never a danger, but that it was now more likely to display arbitrary aggression. Animals in national parks technically have access to stupid humans, but do not regularly stalk or kill them. Most avoid human contact.

I rest my case.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-10-02 02:41am

Darth Wong wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:This thread is getting ridiculous.
It's been ridiculous for a long time. Axis honestly seems to believe that tigers have natural inhibitions against hurting human beings, and that it takes a stressful event to break down these imaginary barriers.

I found it ridiculous too, but it seems that Axis is correct.

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/maneating.html

I guess we just can't trust Hollywood to give us a good idea of tiger behavior. I'm not sure if any situation relating to a zoo can be considered natural, but it does look like tiger have inhipitions about approaching people. Must be that the relatives and friends of people killed in tiger attacks exert a little "selective pressure."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-02 02:44am

Symmetry wrote:I found it ridiculous too, but it seems that Axis is correct.

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/maneating.html

Wrong. Axis is not talking about a tiger not actively hunting and preying on humans somewhere in the wild; he's talking about a tiger in a zoo having inhibitions about biting a human hand which is offered to him.

The many incidents of tigers attacking keepers and intruders in zoos prove quite handily that there is no natural inhibition against this.

Interesting to know that Axis is not the only moron on the board who thinks that a tiger would not normally bite a human intruder, though.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-02 02:55am

Well mountain lion's and black bears don't consider us food. Tigers have been known to eat people for quite some time. Anyone who has read Kipling knows this. *Ok, they think that bears are dangerous. Personally as a long time Sticks denizen I should remind you that I have no fear of bears or lions. Raccons intimdate me.)