Roy of Siegfreid and Roy Attacked by Tiger

[Sriad]

A strange story in all aspects. I hope it all holds together, but if not there are a lot of worse ways for a magician to have a last performance.

I feel bad for Roy. He was a gay lion tamer/magician who managed to find another gay lion tamer/magician.

That made my day. Or it would have if I hadn't seen the Objective Kid's site.

[Axis Kast]

You mean the violence and chaos for which you have no real source whatsoever (hence your desperate resort to the assumption that if animals were stolen over a period of weeks or months, this must have constituted dreadful violence and chaos which would leave a tiger permanently terrified ... thus making him LESS fearful of humans according to you ), and which you cannot possibly show to be necessary for a tiger to feel motivated to bite a human hand?

Well, we know that wild animals - including bears - escaped the zoo and went on a virtual rampage, killing no less than three people. They don't strike me as likely to have been strolling along on their way out, either.

You're trying to make it seem as if the liklihood rests with order. It does not. It is much more likely that the looting was a slap-shod affair - especially if the city ended up playing host to larger wild animals such as bears, running around largely unrestrained until being corralled by Coalition troops.

Again, I'm not trying to prove the tiger wouldn't ever bite the human hand (particularly because it was holding food) - merely that because it did, we have a problem.

Well, I found that information in ten minutes on-line, and without knowing anything about the international black market (as opposed to Iraq, where smuggling has been important for a while). No, "most" Iraqis aren't likely to have that information. Those that do, however, are likely to be quite encouraged to loot, since a single pound of rhinoceros horn is the equivalent of 4 years of the per capita GDP. And there would be black marketeers in Baghdad (if you have to ask for proof, you're an idiot...all big cities have a black market of some sort).

But the fact remains: many wild animals escaped their new owners, and many of the animals were recovered before they could be shuttled anywhrere at all. You also have to tackle the poor communications within the city and the very low liklihood of anything like that being able to move in or out of the country with even a maximum of effort.

[Darth Wong]

Well, we know that wild animals - including bears - escaped the zoo and went on a virtual rampage, killing no less than three people. They don't strike me as likely to have been strolling along on their way out, either.

Obviously, they were let out of their cages. And this translates to the other animals being terrified to the point of permanent psychological neuroses ... how? Your leaps in logic never fail to amuse.

You're trying to make it seem as if the liklihood rests with order. It does not. It is much more likely that the looting was a slap-shod affair - especially if the city ended up playing host to larger wild animals such as bears, running around largely unrestrained until being corralled by Coalition troops.

Of course the looting was disorganized. How does this prove that the tiger was terrified in his cage, or that there were explosions and gunfire involved?

Again, I'm not trying to prove the tiger wouldn't ever bite the human hand (particularly because it was holding food) - merely that because it did, we have a problem.

And yet nearly identical problems in other zoos have not resulted in the tiger being put down, because that is perfectly natural behaviour for the tiger. All of your attempts to show that this case was somehow indicative of an unusually vicious or dangerous tiger have failed. Naturally, this doesn't faze you in the least. And you wonder why you've been nicknamed Comical Axi.

[Macross]

So, apparently the tiger did not attack Roy.

Weird.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Thats interesting... I dont know if I believe it or not.

Well, that is coming from Roy's partner and the source is CNN.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I meant that I was unsure if the tiger was trying to protect Roy. I guess that those two would be the only people who know the tiger best.

[Axis Kast]

Obviously, they were let out of their cages. And this translates to the other animals being terrified to the point of permanent psychological neuroses ... how? Your leaps in logic never fail to amuse.

"Permenant psychological neuroses?" No. Continued stress as a result of the experience, still in the not-so-distant past? Absolutely.

Did it ever occur to you, Mike, that sometimes, we need to make educated guesses? Considering the context of the situation and the violence of Baghdad just after its fall, it only makes sense that guns went off during the looting.

Certainly, the tiger couldn't have been all that pleased with the fact that it was confined as other predators roamed free.

And yet nearly identical problems in other zoos have not resulted in the tiger being put down, because that is perfectly natural behaviour for the tiger. All of your attempts to show that this case was somehow indicative of an unusually vicious or dangerous tiger have failed. Naturally, this doesn't faze you in the least. And you wonder why you've been nicknamed Comical Axi.

Other zoos in the United States or Europe where quality care was always a constant.

Failed? Absolutely not. In fact, I've managed to pick up some support along the way, nevermind the fact that most people came here to pick the contrary argument regardless - and that others posted earlier agreement but somehow managed to escape criticism themselves. That rather exposes your efforts as one part faith, three parts malign intent.

[Darth Wong]

Certainly, the tiger couldn't have been all that pleased with the fact that it was confined as other predators roamed free.

Ahhh, so now you think the tiger bit the guy's hand because he was jealous of the other animals?

Axis, you're the most unintentionally funny person I've ever encountered.

Other zoos in the United States or Europe where quality care was always a constant.

Doesn't change the fact that your theory (that a tiger which bites a human must be stressed and therefore has to be put down) is bullshit.

Failed? Absolutely not. In fact, I've managed to pick up some support along the way, nevermind the fact that most people came here to pick the contrary argument regardless - and that others posted earlier agreement but somehow managed to escape criticism themselves. That rather exposes your efforts as one part faith, three parts malign intent.

Please, find me the people who agree with you that the tiger bit the man because of "stress" and not because IT'S A FUCKING TIGER.

[Patrick Degan]

Failed? Absolutely not. In fact, I've managed to pick up some support along the way, nevermind the fact that most people came here to pick the contrary argument regardless - and that others posted earlier agreement but somehow managed to escape criticism themselves. That rather exposes your efforts as one part faith, three parts malign intent.

As I believe you were told once before, truth is not a popularity contest. And none of your so-called "supporters" endorsed the ridiculous stress theory you keep flogging.

[BoredShirtless]

Axis my boy, this ones for you:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/10/Artsa ... laim.shtml

"Stress led to the bite," said Dorfman, who works with the International Exotic Feline Sanctuary in Texas.

[Vympel]

Well that clinches it. Why hasn't this tiger been shot?! Why dammit, why?!

[Darth Wong]

Well that clinches it. Why hasn't this tiger been shot?! Why dammit, why?!

They'll obviously have to shoot the tiger now. As per Kast's theory, the Siegfriend and Roy tiger has now become a maneater whereas it was a gourmet wild-boar eater before, and is actually dangerous (unlike regular tigers)

[Sea Skimmer]

Threads shouldn’t be both this stupid and funny at the same time..

[RedImperator]

Interesting tidbit: I e-mailed the Philadelphia Zoo (using a form on their website here) and asked what their policy would be in a situation where a visitor stuck his hand in a predtor's cage. Here's the response I got:

Even though I was pretty sure I knew the answer to this (hopefully) hypothetical question, I did ask one of our curators at the Zoo. Under the
circumstances you describe, the animal would probably not be put down. I don't think it would be quite as simple as "writing it off as the visitor being stupid." I have no doubt that there would be a very thorough investigation before any conclusions would be drawn. I am assuming that the zoo would have to prove that every precaution had been taken to ensure the safety of its visitors and that it was in fact the fault of the visitor.

Bottom line: zoos don't destroy predators that maul visitors if the visitor was at fault.

[Hamel]

Pardon my classy self for interjecting here

Ilana Mercer is an idiot that thinks animals shouldn't have rights:

A vague anxiety underlies the media's preoccupation with the recent attacks on people by predators – Roy Horn of the "Siegfried and Roy" act was mauled by a tiger, and grizzly-bear advocate Timothy Treadwell and his companion were gobbled up in Alaska while traveling across bear country (without weapons).

As more wild animals brazenly make themselves at home in manicured suburbs, people, including media top dogs, worry. And for good reason. They are taught from cradle to crypt that humans have encroached on the animals' territory. On television, "Animal Planet" experts tell them (mostly incorrectly) how rare, essential to the "ecosystem," and misunderstood these creatures are.

Equally unassailable is the premise that you don't shoot alligators, bears, coyotes and cougars – not even when they threaten hearth and home. Should a "situation" arise, to avoid criminal charges, one is expected to practically Mirandize the animal before eliminating it.

Bill O'Reilly conducted a species-sensitive interview with a couple of animal trainers following Horn's mauling. The urban legend now making the rounds has it that, after being reluctantly dragged by the animal to a more secluded picnic spot, Horn, a jet of blood squirting from his neck, told paramedics not to kill the tiger.

Well, perhaps. But Roy need not have worried his poor – and by then also poorly attached – head. The O'Reilly interview was marked by the same forlorn fatalism. The typical PETA-friendly (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) discussion, replete with anthropomorphism (the practice of attributing human characteristics to an animal) followed. Everyone agreed solemnly that the animal didn't intend to commit a crime.

Forgive me if this is too (excuse the expression) catty a point to make, but isn't that the case with creatures that have no capacity for conscious thought? Unlike human beings, animals are incapable of forming malicious intent – they simply act reflexively, in a stimulus-response manner.

Because animals kill with no forethought or conscience, we don't hold them responsible for their actions in the legal sense, as we would a human being. We agree they were only acting on their animal instincts – they don't function on a higher plane.

Yet a public long fed a diet of Disneyfied cartoon animals has also swallowed a lot of pabulum about the "humanness" of animals. We've reached the point that even quasi-scientific National Geographic may give Christian names to its boa constrictor film stars. As the animal slithers on its random way, the creepy narrator will also imbue the creature with elaborate inner concerns. In the event that this curdled schmaltz fails to sicken viewers, it should, at the very least, have the credibility of a "Winnie the Poo" overdub.

Animal-rights advocates – some of whom even walk upright and have active frontal lobes – argue, for instance, that because the great apes share a considerable portion of our genetic material, they are just like human beings, and ought to be given human rights.

As of yet, though, Alexei A. Abrikosov, Vitaly L. Ginzburg and Anthony J. Leggett are not the names of lower primates – they are the names of the 2003 Nobel Prize winners in physics. No matter how many genes these men share with monkeys and no matter how sentient chimps are, the latter will never contribute anything to "the theory of superconductors and superfluids," or author a document like the "Declaration of Independence," much less tell good from bad.

Given that human beings are so vastly different in mental and moral stature from apes, the lesson from any genetic similarities the species share is this and no more: A few genes are responsible for very many incalculable differences!

Unlike human beings, animals by their nature are not moral agents. They possess no free will, no capacity to tell right from wrong, and cannot reflect on their actions. While they often act quite wonderfully, their motions are merely a matter of conditioning.

Since man is a rational agent, with the gift of consciousness and a capacity to scrutinize his deeds and chart his actions, we hold him culpable for his transgressions. A human being's exceptional ability to discern right from wrong makes him punishable for any criminal depravity.

Man's nature is the source of the responsibility he bears for his actions. It is also the source of his rights. Human or individual rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property, are derived from man's innate moral agency and capacity for reason.

Unfortunately, the new-generation, campy "conservatives," who look to Bo Derek as the Republican brain trust on animal rights, desperately need an explanation of what a right is.

A right is a legal claim against another. As author and lecturer Robert Bidinotto points out in his manifesto against environmentalism and animal rights, rights establish boundaries among those who possess them. Since animals can't recognize such boundaries, they should certainly not be granted legal powers against human beings.

Moreover, the rights human beings possess exist within the context of a moral community. Animals don't belong to a moral community – they answer the call of the wild. When a simian devours her young ones, none of her sisters in the colony hoot a la Jane Goodall for justice. Not one of the many tigers lounging around on Siegfried and Roy's Little Bavaria estate is catcalling for the majestic head of their errant teammate.

The nature of animals makes them worthy of human compassion, kindness and care, but never of any human rights.

The perverse, pagan, public theatre elicited by animal attacks ought to give way to some life-loving, logical lessons. It is in the nature of things for predators to kill. Wild animals have big pointy teeth for a reason, wrote John Robson of the Ottawa Citizen.

A civilized society places human life above all else and endorses its vigorous defense – it doesn't show resignation when beast attacks man.

In the future, if a working wild animal repeats this perfectly predictable performance, a stage hand should be poised to lodge a bullet in the critter's skull. The same goes for bears in the backyard.

[Macross]

^^ That guy has no idea what he is talking about. I think he underestimates the intelligence of animals. My family has two cats and they dont just act on instinct alone. They know when they have done something wrong, and they know when they are about to do something wrong. Sometimes they will actually conspire against us to get away with it. They demonstrate problem solving skills. They want something, they figure out how to get it.

[LordShaithis]

"Not my kitty. My kitty is super smart."

Please. This article was on the money.

[Iceberg]

Animals don't have rights. They have protections, but not rights.

[Macross]

"Not my kitty. My kitty is super smart."

Please. This article was on the money.

You obviously havent observed animals for any length of time.

[Axis Kast]

hhh, so now you think the tiger bit the guy's hand because he was jealous of the other animals?

In the wild, animals are unlikely to remain immobile as larger predators cross their territory. Needless to say, the tiger in the Baghdad zoo would have been unable to do so.

Doesn't change the fact that your theory (that a tiger which bites a human must be stressed and therefore has to be put down) is bullshit

Oh really? Then perhaps you’d like to explain how Yellowstone National Park came to adopt that theory.

Please, find me the people who agree with you that the tiger bit the man because of "stress" and not because IT'S A FUCKING TIGER.

Your attempts to “dumb down” the argument are ridiculous. A tiger is an animal, but even animals display different behaviors in different circumstances. Stress, fear, and hunger can all be factors.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/10/Artsa ... laim.shtml

Bottom line: zoos don't destroy predators that maul visitors if the visitor was at fault.

No, it’s probably not be put down. There’s a difference.

[Vympel]

Oh really? Then perhaps you?d like to explain how Yellowstone National Park came to adopt that theory.

Repeating yourself again? How many times must the difference between a zoo and a national park be drilled through your adamantium skull, exactly?

[Axis Kast]

Repeating yourself again? How many times must the difference between a zoo and a national park be drilled through your adamantium skull, exactly?

What, is it that at National Parks, animals have different brains? Animals can be stressed at a National Park but not at a zoo? Bullshit. The point is that you and others have been insisting stress is not a quallifier - as so eloquently put by Mike a few posts up. And you're wrong.

[Vympel]

What, is it that at National Parks, animals have different brains? Animals can be stressed at a National Park but not at a zoo? Bullshit.

No, you fucking retard, it's that animals roam freely in National Parks, not zoos.

The point is that you and others have been insisting stress is not a quallifier - as so eloquently put by Mike a few posts up. And you're wrong.

No, we've been arguing against your ridiculous idea that animals in zoos which are 'stressed' and who maul someone are shot.