Man Mauled by Pet Tiger — Film at 11

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 11:06pm

Axis Kast wrote:
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.

Nice rebuttal

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.

Ah, so now we've backpedaled from tigers having a "psychological aversion" to biting humans to us being something less than their "chief or preferred prey?"

Concession accepted. We're not the gourmet choice of tigers. Doesn't mean a tiger has to be psychologically disturbed in order to attack a human.

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.

Elephants are not predators, dumb-ass. They are herbivores, and if they attack a human, that represents unusual behaviour for them. To compare an elephant to a tiger (ie- a natural predator, in case you STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT) merely proves you're an idiot.

PS. Since you're obviously too ignorant to know this, elephants are not kept isolated from humans like tigers are. Instead of barrier contact, they usually have free contact with handlers and keepers.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-07 11:40pm

Ah, so now we've backpedaled from tigers having a "psychological aversion" to biting humans to us being something less than their "chief or preferred prey?"

Concession accepted. We're not the gourmet choice of tigers. Doesn't mean a tiger has to be psychologically disturbed in order to attack a human.

According to Dictionary.com:

"Aversion: n. 1) The avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus."

Why do tigers associate humans with unpleasant stimulus? Two primary reasons: (A) a human is comparitively small to the larger prey most tigers are likely to "bring down" in the wild, and is thus a poor meal, and (B) a human tends to make a grea deal of noise; as already noted, they can very easily deliver an impression of greater size and strength than is actually the case.

Hence, humans are not the preferred prey. Hence, the tiger has an aversion to becoming a maneater. All of this is psychological, mind you. What we end up with, therefore, is a psychological aversion - i.e. a chief preferrence.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-07 11:44pm

Axis Kast wrote:According to Dictionary.com:

"Aversion: n. 1) The avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus."

Why do tigers associate humans with unpleasant stimulus? Two primary reasons: (A) a human is comparitively small to the larger prey most tigers are likely to "bring down" in the wild, and is thus a poor meal, and (B) a human tends to make a grea deal of noise; as already noted, they can very easily deliver an impression of greater size and strength than is actually the case.

Hence, humans are not the preferred prey. Hence, the tiger has an aversion to becoming a maneater. All of this is psychological, mind you. What we end up with, therefore, is a psychological aversion - i.e. a chief preferrence.

I like the way you chose to quote a lesser definition instead of the primary definition, which is listed in that same source as "A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance". That kind of selective quoting is quite typical of you, unfortunately. And proving that we're not the tiger's "preferred" food hardly means that a hungry tiger will normally refrain from eating a human if given a chance.

For the umpteenth time, you will never be able to prove your ridiculous claim that a tiger must be psychologically disturbed if it bites a human.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-08 12:04am

And proving that we're not the tiger's "preferred" food hardly means that a hungry tiger will normally refrain from eating a human if given a chance.

Wild tigers in Southeast Asia don't stalk humans at every turn. It's a possibility, although they remain dedicated hunters of other wild beasts.

For the umpteenth time, you will never be able to prove your ridiculous claim that a tiger must be psychologically disturbed if it bites a human.

No, that's your ridiculous claim. My argument is that stress increases the negative impact of an attack that already runs contrary to the tiger's normal preferences.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-08 12:23am

Axis Kast wrote:Wild tigers in Southeast Asia don't stalk humans at every turn. It's a possibility, although they remain dedicated hunters of other wild beasts.

More backpedaling. The fact that they "don't stalk humans at every turn" does not mean that a hungry tiger will not bite a human.

For the umpteenth time, you will never be able to prove your ridiculous claim that a tiger must be psychologically disturbed if it bites a human.
No, that's your ridiculous claim. My argument is that stress increases the negative impact of an attack that already runs contrary to the tiger's normal preferences.

Oh yes, because tiger attacks are normally not that bad

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-10-08 01:00am

BoredShirtless wrote:Jesus what is it about Tigers these past few weeks, first Iraqi Zoo, then Sig. and Roy, now the Bronx. Could it be that the tigers are rising? Maybe Douglas Adams got it wrong and it's Tigers, not mice running the show...

Its all because of the Detroit Tigers.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-08 01:13am

BoredShirtless wrote:Jesus what is it about Tigers these past few weeks, first Iraqi Zoo, then Sig. and Roy, now the Bronx. Could it be that the tigers are rising? Maybe Douglas Adams got it wrong and it's Tigers, not mice running the show...

And now somebody in Alaska was just mauled to death by a brown bear. The bear claims "that bitch wife" and "those Goddamn brat cubs" were driving him crazy and he just snapped.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-08 01:19am

Tonight, on FOX! WHEN TIGERS ATTACK!! ... due to psychological stress.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-10-08 07:47am

Darth Wong wrote:Elephants are not predators, dumb-ass. They are herbivores, and if they attack a human, that represents unusual behaviour for them

Just another quick interjection, if I may.
Elephants will not attack Humans typically, true enough. (Unless they feel threatened, I thought.) And an elephant will certainly liberate the life force of any being stupid enough to attempt to harm an elephant's young.

Take from this what you will..I'm not picking sides....

[quot="www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-8mar2001-attack.html"]Elephants in circuses are rebelling in attempts to escape their sad existences. Since 1990, elephants have killed at least 46 people and injured many more. In 1994, an elephant killed her trainer and injured 12 spectators before being gunned down by almost 100 bullets while running terrified through downtown Honolulu. In 1994, officer Blayne Doyle, who had to shoot 47 rounds into Janet, an elephant who charged out of the Great American Circus arena, lamented: "I think these elephants are trying to tell us that zoos and circuses are not what God created them for. But we have not been listening." [/quote]

More Elephant deaths here:
OUCH!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-08 11:09am

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.

Hey stupid, guess what we have on us? lots of CHEMICALS and of
course MEATY BREATH. There's a reason only eco hippies get mauled
by the animals at Yellowstone, they all see us as a predator.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-08 11:38am

More backpedaling. The fact that they "don't stalk humans at every turn" does not mean that a hungry tiger will not bite a human.

It's still unusual behavior. Most tigers don't have contact with humans in the first place. In fact, most wild animals don't - despite the fact that they could.

Oh yes, because tiger attacks are normally not that bad.

The reinforcement of the attack (i.e. Humans = Preferred Prey) is not something most animal experts would welcome. Hence the psychological side of the argument.

And now somebody in Alaska was just mauled to death by a brown bear. The bear claims "that bitch wife" and "those Goddamn brat cubs" were driving him crazy and he just snapped.

What part of "Greater Stress = Greater Reinforcement of Negative Behavior" don't you understand?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-10-08 12:12pm

Axis Kast wrote:What part of "Greater Stress = Greater Reinforcement of Negative Behavior" don't you understand?

So what are you saying? That w/o the stress the tiger would just gently nibble on the guy's arm instead of biting the thing off?

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

Axis Kast wrote:Why do tigers associate humans with unpleasant stimulus? Two primary reasons: (A) a human is comparitively small to the larger prey most tigers are likely to "bring down" in the wild, and is thus a poor meal, and (B) a human tends to make a grea deal of noise; as already noted, they can very easily deliver an impression of greater size and strength than is actually the case.

First you say that tigers don't attack people because we are too small to provide a proper meal for them and then you say that since we are quite loud tigers don't attack us since they belief that we are larger then we actualy are. Doesn't point B refute point A?

BTW tigers hunt animals of varius sizes many of them smaller then man, and some far larger. Besides even a fully grown adult tiger can't eat more then 20kg meat at a time, so eating a man would satify a tiger's hunger. Source and more on tigers.

Second link wrote:Although habitat dictates the type of animal that it hunts, the tiger prefers larger prey, such as wild boar, buffalo and deer, but also hunts fish , monkeys and various small mammals if it preferred food source is unavailable.

I originaly intended to tell you to get your facts straight, but knowing your predilection for flat out lying to advance your cause I think I'll skip that and just say: Busted!

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-08 06:26pm

Axis Kast wrote:
More backpedaling. The fact that they "don't stalk humans at every turn" does not mean that a hungry tiger will not bite a human.
It's still unusual behavior. Most tigers don't have contact with humans in the first place. In fact, most wild animals don't - despite the fact that they could.

So basically you're saying that if humans and tigers had more contact, tigers still wouldn't maul humans? More crock.

~ver

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-09 01:30am

So what are you saying? That w/o the stress the tiger would just gently nibble on the guy's arm instead of biting the thing off?

Not at all. I'm arguing that this particular situation occured in a certain context that leaves the tiger more vulnerable to aggression than say a second tiger that bit a similar human in the Bronx or San Diego Zoo.

First you say that tigers don't attack people because we are too small to provide a proper meal for them and then you say that since we are quite loud tigers don't attack us since they belief that we are larger then we actualy are. Doesn't point B refute point A?

BTW tigers hunt animals of varius sizes many of them smaller then man, and some far larger. Besides even a fully grown adult tiger can't eat more then 20kg meat at a time, so eating a man would satify a tiger's hunger. Source and more on tigers.

Tigers avoid people for various different reasons; all you need to concern yourself with is the sticking point of it all: humans are not on the menu as a matter of course, even when tigers have access to vulnerable populations in Southeast Asia.

I originaly intended to tell you to get your facts straight, but knowing your predilection for flat out lying to advance your cause I think I'll skip that and just say: Busted!

You've just sunk your own battleship, commadore.

"Habit dictates the type of animal that it hunts [...]." A tiger that kills humans - especially while being offered food - is likely to gain the impression that it's acceptable behavior to be regularized in the future.

As for your supposedly explosive evidence, I don't see human beings on that list.

So basically you're saying that if humans and tigers had more contact, tigers still wouldn't maul humans? More crock.

No. I'm arguing that even tigers that might access human populations do not do so, by and large.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-09 02:19am

No. I'm arguing that even tigers that might access human populations do not do so, by and large.

That's a big if, there. Got any evidence to support that?

~ver

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-09 02:38am

Tigers are not maneaters by preference.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-09 03:17am

Axis Kast wrote:Tigers are not maneaters by preference.

In a world of chaos, it is comforting to know that the stupidity of Axis Kast remains, as reliable as the rock of Gibraltar.

Tigers do not "prefer" to eat humans over their favourite prey, but that is totally fucking irrelevant in the case of a tiger in an apartment or a cage with a human, since his preferred food is not present! Do you think there were any fucking deer or wild boar in the cage in Baghdad or this apartment?

Despite your endless bullshit, it is perfectly normal for a tiger in such situations to bite the human, hence the need for very careful training in order for humans to work closely with tigers, and even that is no guarantee as Siegfried and Roy discovered to their chagrin.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-10-09 04:29am

Darth Wong wrote:Despite your endless bullshit, it is perfectly normal for a tiger in such situations to bite the human, hence the need for very careful training in order for humans to work closely with tigers, and even that is no guarantee as Siegfried and Roy discovered to their chagrin.

I believe that this is the seventh instance that one of the duo has been mauled by one of their charges ... Shit, I am routing for the tigers now.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-09 04:34am

The tiger actually didn't attack Roy but wanted to help him, so says his boyfriend:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/ ... index.html

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2003-10-09 06:08am

BoredShirtless wrote:The tiger actually didn't attack Roy but wanted to help him, so says his boyfriend:

I have an alternate theory -- the tiger stopped biting down as soon as all that botox in Roy's face starting shooting down the tiger's throat. It must have been like biting into spoiled fruit.

Audience members who witnessed the show at the MGM Mirage said it appeared the tiger momentarily lashed out at his trainer, mauling him and then dragging him offstage.

"Like most performers, Montecore was very-self-conscious about his weight and was embarrassed to be seen eating large portions in public."

-- Joe Momma

Insert joke about "the other white meat" here.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-10-09 07:40am

Joe Momma wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:The tiger actually didn't attack Roy but wanted to help him, so says his boyfriend:
I have an alternate theory -- the tiger stopped biting down as soon as all that botox in Roy's face starting shooting down the tiger's throat. It must have been like biting into spoiled fruit.

Audience members who witnessed the show at the MGM Mirage said it appeared the tiger momentarily lashed out at his trainer, mauling him and then dragging him offstage.
"Like most performers, Montecore was very-self-conscious about his weight and was embarrassed to be seen eating large portions in public."

-- Joe Momma

Insert joke about "the other white meat" here.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-09 12:46pm

BoredShirtless wrote:The tiger actually didn't attack Roy but wanted to help him, so says his boyfriend:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/ ... index.html

Protecting him from what?

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

Durandal wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:The tiger actually didn't attack Roy but wanted to help him, so says his boyfriend:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/ ... index.html
Protecting him from what?

According to Sig, the tiger thought Roy was in danger cause he fell over. So the tiger draged Roy by the neck, seeking safety. Which I guess makes sense, if Sig got the tigers motives right. I guess we'll never really know for sure.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-10-09 01:55pm

Tigers do not "prefer" to eat humans over their favourite prey, but that is totally fucking irrelevant in the case of a tiger in an apartment or a cage with a human, since his preferred food is not present! Do you think there were any fucking deer or wild boar in the cage in Baghdad or this apartment?

Despite your endless bullshit, it is perfectly normal for a tiger in such situations to bite the human, hence the need for very careful training in order for humans to work closely with tigers, and even that is no guarantee as Siegfried and Roy discovered to their chagrin.

Did I ever argue the point that the tiger in the apartment displayed unusual behavior toward its owner? No. It was in a very poor situation - which probably reinforced aggressive tendancies toward humans -, but that's not to say human error wasn't entirely at fault.

Now, back to the main argument. Tigers in the wild are not maneaters by preference. A tiger that attacks a human being and gets way with it will gain the impression that it is acceptable prey - especially if the tiger is in a stressful situation that already elevates its aggressive behavior.