Man Mauled by Pet Tiger — Film at 11

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 12:52pm

I love the way Axis says it's a "desperate strawman" for me to poke fun at him for thinking that tigers have a natural inhibition against biting humans rather than stress simply "making the attack worse", but then he turns around and admits that what I said is actually a completely accurate description of his argument by admitting that he thinks the stress lowers the animals "psychological aversion" to biting humans. It's always funny when someone contradicts himself so quickly and easily. I guess "psychological aversion" is different from "inhibition", so my description is still a strawman

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-07 12:54pm

Axis Kast wrote:Strawman. Do you actually pay any fucking attention at all?

Do you know what a strawman is, you stupid fucking retard?

For the last time: stress makes the effects of the attack worse.

That's what you said, you stupid hatfucker.

Most large institutions that deal with wild, predatory animals (Yellowstone National Park is the prime example) do so only after taking stress into account after aggressive behavior.

As the reasoning goes - and this is the jist of my argument -, an animal under is a stress is an animal whose psychological aversion to striking humans or displaying frequent aggression is erroded.

Tigers have a psychological aversion to striking humans? Are you an idiot? YES.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-07 01:05pm

Axis Kast wrote:An animal confined to an apartment that its owner cannot enter and fed with frozen chickens isn't exactly living the "fine life". If you can't see any stressors here, it's willful ignorance.

And once again, Wong attempts desperately to make a strawman of my original argument. For the last time: stress makes the effects of the attack worse.

Are you insane?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 01:15pm

Of course he's insane. He believes that a normal tiger will hold back due to its "psychological aversion" to hurting humans, so that either it won't attack at all or when it attacks, its immensely powerful jaws won't do much damage to a fragile human body. But if the tiger has heard some loud noises in the past few months or lives in an apartment without good access to local park facilities (maybe he even lacked satellite TV), then the "effects of the attack" will become worse and it will develop such violent rage that it can actually hurt a human.

Welcome to AxisWorld.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-07 01:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:Welcome to AxisWorld.

Interesting to note that a tiger, a natural-born predator, is not going to attack a human for no reason.

Hah!!

~ver

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-07 01:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:He believes that a normal tiger will hold back due to its "psychological aversion" to hurting humans, so that either it won't attack at all

Actually, he's somewhat right (but not by much).

There's a reason maneaters or tigers that have mauled people are
promptly put down; they've lost their fear of these strange animals,
humans, and see them now as crunchy kitty kibble.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-07 01:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Welcome to AxisWorld.

You unlock this door with the key of idiocy. Beyond it is another dimension. A dimension of fallacies. A dimension of unsupported assertions. A dimension of insanity. You're moving into a land of both style and substance of things and ideas- well, actually, just style, not much substance. You've just crossed over into the AxisWorld.

*cue 'the music'*

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-07 01:42pm

Vympel wrote:You've just crossed over into the AxisWorld.

*cue 'the music'*

He must die for having the same name as that most non-pc, but oh so cool
alliance from the 1940s that dominated most of Europe

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-10-07 03:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:Of course he's insane. He believes that a normal tiger will hold back due to its "psychological aversion" to hurting humans, so that either it won't attack at all or when it attacks, its immensely powerful jaws won't do much damage to a fragile human body. But if the tiger has heard some loud noises in the past few months or lives in an apartment without good access to local park facilities (maybe he even lacked satellite TV), then the "effects of the attack" will become worse and it will develop such violent rage that it can actually hurt a human.

Welcome to AxisWorld.

What he dosen't seem to understand is that aversion to human beings, in wild animals, is a learned behavior. If a species associates the disappearence of its own kind (whether through hunting or capture) with human beings then it tends to avoid human beings out of self preservation. However, if a predator have no reason to fear humans then it will see them as FOOD.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-07 04:04pm

Actually, he's somewhat right (but not by much).

There's a reason maneaters or tigers that have mauled people are
promptly put down; they've lost their fear of these strange animals,
humans, and see them now as crunchy kitty kibble.

Exactly.

Tigers in the wild often have significant chances to take human prey - but decline to so because they can seek food elsewhere.

It's not that the tiger isn't dangerous or that putting your hand in the cage is intelligent; it's that there are reasons beyond pure "aggressive nature" to explain maneaters.

What he dosen't seem to understand is that aversion to human beings, in wild animals, is a learned behavior. If a species associates the disappearence of its own kind (whether through hunting or capture) with human beings then it tends to avoid human beings out of self preservation. However, if a predator have no reason to fear humans then it will see them as FOOD.

Explain animals in Yellowstone.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-07 04:05pm

Wong, how the fuck can you seriously claim a tiger locked in a tiny apartment and fed raw chickens through a fucking door is going to be at all psychologically healthy?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-10-07 04:11pm

Explain animals in Yellowstone.

How can I do that when I have no idea to what your refering?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-07 04:26pm

Axis Kast wrote: Tigers in the wild often have significant chances to take human prey - but decline to so because they can seek food elsewhere.

Bullshit, it's because we're loud nasty predators that go bang bang bang
and tear up their habitat...Once they kill a human, they realize that we're
just kitty food and can't even fight back at all..and there on it gets worse.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 04:33pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:He believes that a normal tiger will hold back due to its "psychological aversion" to hurting humans, so that either it won't attack at all
Actually, he's somewhat right (but not by much).

There's a reason maneaters or tigers that have mauled people are
promptly put down; they've lost their fear of these strange animals,
humans, and see them now as crunchy kitty kibble.

You forgot the "in the wild" part. When it happens in zoos as a result of human incompetence, there is no such rule.

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ ... eeper.html
http://www.bigcats.org/abc/attacks/vienna.html
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/ ... icago.html

Note: links have been shown before. Axis dismissed them as "exceptions to the rule". Naturally, when challenged for proof of his rule that animals in captivity are killed if they hurt people who get into their cages, he clammed up and started on this "stress" nonsense. Still waiting for an answer on the challenge.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 04:34pm

Axis Kast wrote:Wong, how the fuck can you seriously claim a tiger locked in a tiny apartment and fed raw chickens through a fucking door is going to be at all psychologically healthy?

Idiot, how the fuck can you seriously claim a hungry tiger needs to be psychologically unhealthy to bite a human?

Tiger hungry.
Tiger sees big walking slab of meat.
Tiger bites big walking slab of meat.

This is not complicated, moron. We don't need a tiger psychiatrist to figure out his motivations. It has nothing to do with any psychological issues, except perhaps for yours.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-10-07 05:11pm

[axis]But the tiger was being kept in Harlem, and it was hearing gunshots and sirens on a regular basis![/axis]

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-07 06:44pm

Bullshit, it's because we're loud nasty predators that go bang bang bang
and tear up their habitat...Once they kill a human, they realize that we're
just kitty food and can't even fight back at all..and there on it gets worse.

Most tigers stay away from humans not because they associate them with guns, but because they're not part of the traditional prey they learn to hunt from birth.

Note: links have been shown before. Axis dismissed them as "exceptions to the rule". Naturally, when challenged for proof of his rule that animals in captivity are killed if they hurt people who get into their cages, he clammed up and started on this "stress" nonsense. Still waiting for an answer on the challenge.

Except for all the links I posted countering your argument, discussing an equal number of cases in which animals were in fact put down...

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-10-07 08:14pm

Pavlov would have loved you.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-07 08:33pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Bullshit, it's because we're loud nasty predators that go bang bang bang
and tear up their habitat...Once they kill a human, they realize that we're
just kitty food and can't even fight back at all..and there on it gets worse.
Most tigers stay away from humans not because they associate them with guns, but because they're not part of the traditional prey they learn to hunt from birth.

Actually, it's because making a lot of noise in the jungle is the equivalent of being Samuel L. Jackson walking through Harlem. A noisy creature in the jungle is advertising that it IS the baddest motherfucker around, and anything intelligent will avoid it. Some tigers are just stupider and/or hungrier (take your pick) than others. It's simple instinct for any creature in the food web to avoid something unidentifiable that sounds bigger than it is, because it's probably a predator that will eat it.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-07 08:53pm

Axis Kast wrote:Most tigers stay away from humans not because they associate them with guns, but because they're not part of the traditional prey they learn to hunt from birth.

Most tigers aren't anywhere near humans, shitface. Most tiers are (a) in the wild, or (b) in captivity in zoos. Generally, tigers don't see humans as food because they have no interaction with them.

Besides... if it moves on its own, it can be considered food. Chew on that for a minute.

~ver

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-07 09:03pm

Tigers share habitats with people throughout Southeast Asia.

I also point to the breaking news in Alaska, where two bears at a major national park were killed by rangers after having mauled two men.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-10-07 09:04pm

Axis Kast wrote:I also point to the breaking news in Alaska, where two bears at a major national park were killed by rangers after having mauled two men.

If the rangers didn't that bear could have easily starting running after them. After all, it's not like they're caged.~Jason

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-10-07 09:30pm

Two Malibu residents killed in Alaska bear attack
The Associated Press
Last Updated 3:54 p.m. PDT Tuesday, October 7, 2003
KING SALMON, Alaska -- Two Californians were killed in an apparent bear attack near Kaflia Bay in Katmai National Park on the Alaska Peninsula, Alaska State Troopers said Tuesday.
The bodies were found Monday when a pilot with Andrew Airways arrived to pick up the man and woman and take them to Kodiak, troopers said.

The pilot saw a bear, possibly on top of a body, in the camp and contacted the National Park Service in King Salmon and state troopers in Kodiak.

Park rangers encountered an aggressive bear when they arrived at the campsite and killed it. Investigators then found human remains buried by a bear near the campsite.

The victims, believed to be in their late 30s to early 40s, were from Malibu, Calif. Their identities were being withheld pending notification of relatives.

The remains and the entire campsite were packed out and transported to Kodiak on the Andrew Airways flight.

As the plane was being loaded, another aggressive bear approached and was killed by park rangers and troopers.

The bodies were flown to the state medical examiner's office for autopsy.

Source here

Yep, bears out directly menacing park rangers is exactly the same as a dumbass sticking his arm into a tiger's cage.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 10:44pm

Axis Kast wrote:Most tigers stay away from humans not because they associate them with guns, but because they're not part of the traditional prey they learn to hunt from birth.

Do you think tigers are fucking food critics now? If a tiger is hungry, and a human arm is presented to it, he will chow down. What do you think he's going to do, turn up his nose in disdain, and say in tiger-language that this dinner is not acceptable? Holy fuck, you get dumber by the minute!

Note: links have been shown before. Axis dismissed them as "exceptions to the rule". Naturally, when challenged for proof of his rule that animals in captivity are killed if they hurt people who get into their cages, he clammed up and started on this "stress" nonsense. Still waiting for an answer on the challenge.
Except for all the links I posted countering your argument, discussing an equal number of cases in which animals were in fact put down...

You mean the ones where you act as though Yosemite national park is an example of "animals in captivity"?

Here's a hint: animals in captivity are generally kept in these things called "cages".

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-07 10:59pm

Do you think tigers are fucking food critics now? If a tiger is hungry, and a human arm is presented to it, he will chow down. What do you think he's going to do, turn up his nose in disdain, and say in tiger-language that this dinner is not acceptable? Holy fuck, you get dumber by the minute!

This argument is pointless. You don't even stop to consider anything but your own point of view.

Tigers have lived near human communities since the beginning of time; from time to time, somebody dies as the result, but man is not the tiger's chief or preferred prey in the presence of other beasts.

Here's a hint: animals in captivity are generally kept in these things called "cages".

And I gave you the examples of the elepehants, Wong. Clear and simple.