MindOverMatter
New member
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. If that turns out to be the case, then the next question will have to be: How did these guys manage to help the tiger out of its cage?
Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. If that turns out to be the case, then the next question will have to be: How did these guys manage to help the tiger out of its cage?
(("Do you know how hard it is to procure more rights for your clients if they are going around mindlessly killing people? So right now the animal rights activists and their cohorts are in the middle of damage control. Gotta boost the image of those lower animals. Can’t let this little incident destroy that image. You can see them all in the thread placing all the blame on the human while defending the tiger. Hey, who can blame them? After all, that is their job. That is what they were born to do."))
The tiger was mindfully killing people.
lain: Which seeing as we feel it is ok to kill critters of other species for fun, would very much be a double standard if we are outraged at it.
(leopard hunting for example. I recently saw a magazine with two men proudly posing over the carcass of a leopard they had bagged on their hunting safari. They had to wait in a groundblind at the waterhole all day for it.)
Just a thought... If you go bear hunting and end up getting mauled, it's fair wouldn't you say? You wouldn't say the man was victimized, because every animal has a natural right to defend its life.
(Gotta boost the image of those lower animals.)
Nobody intelligent thinks they need to boost the image of a tiger by making it out to be a cuddly pet or a respectable citizen.
Every species, no matter how fierce or lowly (there is an endangered turtle where I live that only exists in a few square miles), has a right to exist. We shouldn't feel like we have a right to take up all of their habitat, even if it is to our economic advantage to put a shopping center in that field.
The destruction of other species is an extreme disservice to ourselves. To destroy the environment is to kill ourselves on the inside, for man is holistically the pinnacle of the natural world. It is the squandering our natural heritage like the foolish prodigal son with his wealth. We are stealing from our children and their children.
Many Native Americans had a rule when the council was making a decision, to consider not just the immediate impact on themselves, but to consider the impact it would have on their descendants 7 generations in the future.
As a young person, I feel a heavy pressing guilt at the thoughtless destruction my kind has perpetrated on the most dazzlingly beautiful thing, our own planet.
it's no surprise to me that suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers.
Is "civilization" as we know it today, really an advance? Although we are more clever technologically, is it possible we are incredibly more stupid, and selfish, and unconscious? Maybe simple is better. I'm not saying that technological and societal development is wrong, but to proceed to blitz the world with our machines, buildings, and ravenous pillaging of natural resources just to fuel our economic growth, with no consideration of the longterm repercussions of our actions is.
No wonder we find ourselves complaining about our materialistic, spiritually dead world.
"Strange beautiful, grass of green
with your majestic silver seas
Your mysterious mountains I wish to see closer"
The tiger was mindfully killing people.
lain: Which seeing as we feel it is ok to kill critters of other species for fun, would very much be a double standard if we are outraged at it.(leopard hunting for example. I recently saw a magazine with two men proudly posing over the carcass of a leopard they had bagged on their hunting safari. They had to wait in a groundblind at the waterhole all day for it.)
Just a thought... If you go bear hunting and end up getting mauled, it's fair wouldn't you say? You wouldn't say the man was victimized, because every animal has a natural right to defend its life.
(Gotta boost the image of those lower animals.)
Nobody intelligent thinks they need to boost the image of a tiger by making it out to be a cuddly pet or a respectable citizen.
Every species, no matter how fierce or lowly (there is an endangered turtle where I live that only exists in a few square miles), has a right to exist. We shouldn't feel like we have a right to take up all of their habitat, even if it is to our economic advantage to put a shopping center in that field.
The destruction of other species is an extreme disservice to ourselves. To destroy the environment is to kill ourselves on the inside, for man is holistically the pinnacle of the natural world. It is the squandering our natural heritage like the foolish prodigal son with his wealth. We are stealing from our children and their children.
Many Native Americans had a rule when the council was making a decision, to consider not just the immediate impact on themselves, but to consider the impact it would have on their descendants 7 generations in the future.
As a young person, I feel a heavy pressing guilt at the thoughtless destruction my kind has perpetrated on the most dazzlingly beautiful thing, our own planet.
it's no surprise to me that suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers.
Is "civilization" as we know it today, really an advance? Although we are more clever technologically, is it possible we are incredibly more stupid, and selfish, and unconscious? Maybe simple is better. I'm not saying that technological and societal development is wrong, but to proceed to blitz the world with our machines, buildings, and ravenous pillaging of natural resources just to fuel our economic growth, with no consideration of the longterm repercussions of our actions is.
No wonder we find ourselves complaining about our materialistic, spiritually dead world.
"Strange beautiful, grass of green
with your majestic silver seas
Your mysterious mountains I wish to see closer"
:doh: Don't get her started on that "my-boys-tortured-animals-and-good-for-them" path again. It's painful.
MindOverMatter
New member
MOM has said before but it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of it: Actually, at some point in time everyone is deserving of death. So it’s just a matter of when and how that death comes.
True.
zoo22
Well-known member
Actually, one of them had assaulted a police officer before.
I just knew that tiger probably had a rap sheet as long as his arm...and by his arm I mean the one no longer attached to somebody else. :squint:
Something funny about you posting in this thread. :idunno:
This has inspired me to add to my signature though. :think:
animals aren't subject to any moral laws at all, period, therefore the tiger doesn't need to be defended for anything it did....
Yes, what a surprise, BB has a go at blacks yet again :yawn:
I don't need an excuse, surprisingly enough "English" actually stems from - ooh - lets think, England! and as such it's not illiterate to spell words such as organise with an 's', but if you wanna be captain pedantic then hey, knock yurself out....
Huh?
Just pointing out how stupid someone sounds when they completely mispronounce a word, like you did.
And yet, many of the Englanders here don't have a very good grasp of the language. Have you read any of Doogie Talons' posts? And just today he was bragging about his 'proper English' education. :darwinsm:
Like I already pointed out, you substituted a 'th' for a 'ph'. Is that a common practice in England?
Huh?
Just pointing out how stupid someone sounds when they completely mispronounce a word, like you did.
And yet, many of the Englanders here don't have a very good grasp of the language. Have you ready any of Doogie Talons posts? And just today he was bragging about his 'proper English' education. :darwinsm:
Like I already pointed out, you substituted a 'th' for a 'ph'. Is that a common practice in England?
Have I 'ready' any of Doogie Talons' posts? If you want to be so pedantic about language then at least make sure you get your own posts ship shape BB :chuckle: and you've 'pointed out' something thats in your own head, where, exactly, did I substitute a 'th' for a 'ph' in this thread, that was your own oh so 'subtle' go at the black population again, if you wanna use z's all the time then go for it, tell ya what, here's a few more...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I have no idea what you are talking about.
and you've 'pointed out' something thats in your own head, where, exactly, did I substitute a 'th' for a 'ph' in this thread, that was your own oh so 'subtle' go at the black population again, if you wanna use z's all the time then go for it, tell ya what, here's a few more...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Right here:
How can I 'ready' another person's post? I can read them......
Ah, I see, it wasn't so much the 'z' that got to you after all then, oversight on spelling on my part with that then, fair enough, I suppose I'd better sit through my English exam again as a result before posting again, can we move on from this pedantry now by any chance?
I don't know what you are talking about, the post in question looks fine to me. :idunno:
If we must.......
Getting back to the topic--Taunt people--NOT animals!
Tigers are wild animals. Teasing and taunting them will almost certainly result in trouble.
Just because serial killers and school shooters were supposedly teased and taunted by others, does not excuse their behavior. But people are different and should be able to handle such things.
Tigers are wild animals. Teasing and taunting them will almost certainly result in trouble.
Just because serial killers and school shooters were supposedly teased and taunted by others, does not excuse their behavior. But people are different and should be able to handle such things.
Absolutely ... it makes no sense to expect even a domestic animal to have manners and be civilized IF taunted ... it makes less sense to expect such a standard of wild animals. They aren't evil ... it's in their nature.
Sozo
New member
I haven't read this thread, but to me it seems that the zoo is fully to blame. No one knows when the tiger might have reacted like this, and it's their responsibilty to keep it contained. It's impossible to know what a tiger is thinking, and could have been just as irritated by a crying baby in a stroller.
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, the Zoo was obviously negligent. Since the tiger did escape from its containment. At a zoo there is the expectation that the animals will be contained so as not to bring any physical harm to the customers. The negligence of the teenagers is irrelevant in a liability suit. The negligence of the zoo may even be criminal. Negligence can be a criminal offense. I think it is called depraved indifference. If it can be shown that the zoo should have known (or did know) the risks involved with what they used for containment of the tiger, that is criminal negligence.
Last edited:
I agree and have said the same thing a few times in this thread. Here is one example. :devil:
According to the news reports that have come out since the incident, the cage was not properly built. It is the zoos responsibility to make sure their cages conform to whatever requirements are deemed the industry standard.
I have thought about leaving you stranded in the middle of a tiger infested jungle, yes.